Madras High Court
Nirvagam vs The Presiding Officer on 2 March, 2022
W.P.No.1888 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :02.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No.1888 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011
Nirvagam
Salem Mavatta Madhya Kotturavu,
Vangi Limited,
Cherry Road,
Salem – 1. ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai – 600 104.
2.The Workmen rep.by
Salem Mavatta Madhya Kotturavu,
Anna Paniyalargal Sangam,
Cherry Road, Salem – 1. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in I.D.No.1 of
2007 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai – 600 104, the 1st
respondent herein and to quash the award dated 30.102009 passed therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Raghavan
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1888 of 2011
For Respondents : Mr.N.Kolandaivelu
for R1 Tribunal
ORDER
The petitioner which is a Cooperative Bank is aggrieved against
the Award of the Industrial Tribunal passed in I.D.No. 1 of 2007, whereby
the proposal of the petitioner Bank to recover the excess amount paid on
account of fixation of the selection grade from 01.08.1994.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Registrar of the petitioner Bank have powers to fix wages on the basis of
selection grade and when such fixation is not properly done, the Registrar
would have powers to order for recovery. The issue with regard to
entitlement of the employees of the Cooperative Bank for selection grade pay
on completion of 12 years on the basis of the orders in G.O.Ms.No.203, Co-
operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 21.05.2005
and G.O.Ms.No.144, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, dated 06.07.2000 had come up before for consideration, in
various judgments, including the orders in Nirvagam, Dharmapuri Mavatta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1888 of 2011
Madhiya Kooturavu Vangi, Dharmapuri, passed in Writ Appeal No.1185 of
2010 and by an order dated 27.09.2012, the Hon'ble Division Bench, was
pleased to pass the following order:
“7.Learned Senior Counsel representing the
appellant management, reiterating the very same contentions
raised before the Tribunal and the learned single judge,
submitted that pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.203, dated
21.05.2005 which contemplates the guidelines to fix the salary
as per G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 06.07.2000, the Management
had to resort to recovery of amounts erroneously paid to the
employees. He further submitted that the notice dated
03.01.2001 under Section 9(A) was issued by the
Management in good faith and out of the powers of the
Registrar under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-
operative Societies Act and as such, the employees are
estopped from challenging the act of recovery proceedings
and hence the order passed by the Tribunal and the learned
Single Judge causing interference to the recovery order is
unwarranted and would pray to allow the writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1888 of 2011
8.From the materials on record and the averments
made by either parties, it is seen that the petitioners are
fighting for their pay right from 2002 and inspite of the fact
that the Tribunal passed an Award in favour of the respondent
Union and the same was also affirmed by the learned Single
Judge after considering the issue extensively, the appellant
Bank is reluctant to extend the benefit tot he respondent
Union.
9.We do not think that sitting in appeal, we would be
justified in interfering with the conclusion recorded by the
Labour Court and confirmed by the Learned Single Judge on
what is essentially a conclusion on a question of fact.
Normally, while sitting in appeal, the Court must be slower
and would not interfere with the findings based on facts,
however, when there is a legal question involved or an
illegality apparent on the face of record, the Court can always
interfere.
10.The facts in the present case are different. The
petitioners in this case are claiming the benefits right from
2002. It is to be stated that the matter has been dragged from
2002 without any valid reason with continuous unnecessary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1888 of 2011
litigations.
11.Considering the overall view of the matter, we do
not see any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the
learned single Judge calling interference. Accordingly, the
Writ Appeal falls and the same is dismissed. No costs.”
3. The aforesaid extract is self-explanatory. Since the issue
involved in the present impugned Award is identical to that of the issue dealt
with by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforesaid case is one and the
same, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Industrial Tribunal.
4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently,
the petitioner Bank shall comply with the direction given in the impugned
Award, dated 30.10.2009 in I.D.No.1 of 2007, within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02.03.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1888 of 2011
Pns
M.S.RAMESH, J.
Pns
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai – 600 104.
2.Salem Mavatta Madhya Kotturavu,
The Workmen,
Anna Paniyalargal Sangam,
Cherry Road, Salem – 1.
W.P.No.1888 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011
02.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
