@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
T. Raja, J.@mdashThe petitioner-Chennai Port Trust Employees'' Cooperative Bank Employees Union, aggrieved by the order, dated 4.12.2009, passed by the 1st respondent in Revision No. 5 of 2009, whereby, the Union''s plea for revision of wages from 1.1.2007 and grant of arrears of wages for the period from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008 has been negatived, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking to quash the same. The petitioner-Union approached the Additional Registrar, Chennai Region, by way of Revision u/s 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), stating that whenever there is wage revision for the employees of the Chennai Port Trust, the same will have to be extended to the employees of the respondent-Bank, who are members of the petitioner-Union, as their pay scale is on par with the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust; while so, even though the Port Trust revised the wages to its employees on 1.7.2008 with benefit of arrears from 1.1.2007 to 30.6.2008 and also paid arrears to its employees, the respondent-Bank, instead of implementing the revised pay scales as done by the Port Trust, had given effect of pay revision to its employees/members of the petitioner-Union only from October, 2008. Therefore, they prayed for a direction to pay the arrears of wages from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008 with interest at 18% per annum. The Additional Registrar rejected the said prayer holding that, as per Rule 149 of the TNCS Rules, the Bank should frame special bylaws governing the service conditions of its employees inter alia containing the pay scales of the employees with the prior approval of the Registrar and that, since such special by-laws have not been framed and the pay scales were not approved by the Registrar, the members of the petitioner''s Union/employees of the respondent-Bank are not eligible for any pay revision without the approval of the Registrar. Another reason assigned in the said order is that the Government of Tamil Nadu, in G.O. Ms. No. 89, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Production Department, dated 16.5.2000, have prescribed the scales of pay and allowances to be adopted by the employees'' Co-operative Societies in general and therefore, without the Society adopting the said G.O., the petitioner-Union cannot ask for revision of pay on par with the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the said order on the ground that the scale of pay of the employees working in the respondent/Bank is on par with the employees of the Chennai Port Trust and whenever there is wage revision for the employees of the Port Trust, the same will have to be extended to the employees of the respondent-Bank as well in tune with by-law No. 27 of the respondent Bank. Though the pay scales have been revised for the employees of the Port Trust with effect from 1.7.2008 with the benefit of arrears from 1.1.2007 to 30.6.2008, the respondent-Bank has implemented the new pay scale for the employees of the petitioner-union arbitrarily, only from 1.10.2008, as a result, the arrears of revised wages from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008 amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs has been withheld by the Bank. Implementation of any benefit including wage revision is subject to budget allocation by the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank. That being so, when the respondent-Bank was making a profit of Rs. 97,45,710/- in the year 2001-2002 and the said profit had also increased to Rs. 1,18,68,297/- in the year 2007-08, there is no budgetary constraint to withhold the arrears of wage revision for the period from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008. On that basis, while dealing with the present writ petition, this Court, by its order, dated 4.3.2010, allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to the Bank to implement the revision of wages to its employees from 1.1.2007 onwards and to pay the arrears of wages from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008. Challenging the said Order, the Bank filed W.A. No. 1320 of 2010 and the First Bench, by its order dated 21.9.2010, passed the following order:
(i) The Chennai Port Trust Employees'' Cooperative Limited X-31 represented by its Secretary No. 37-B/110, Sembudoss Street, Chennai-600 001 and the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Credit), Chennai Region, Chennai are suo moto impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 In the writ petition.
(ii) The impleaded parties are directed to file counter affidavit in the main writ petition.
(iii) Registry is directed to list the writ petition for final disposal on 19.10.2010 with a request to the learned single Judge to hear and dispose of the same...
In view of the above said order, the matter came to be listed before this Court for disposal.
3. Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that this Court had already decided the issue of revised scale of pay on par with the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust, in its order dated, 10.9.2008, passed in W.P. No. 16965 of 2000. It is highlighted that, in the said case, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies had declined to implement the settlement on the ground that the resolution was not signed by the President of the Bank, with the result, the matter was taken up to this Court by way of the above mentioned writ petition i.e., W.P. No. 16965 of 2000, seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Credits), Chennai and to quash the order. This Court, by allowing the said writ petition, set aside the order impugned therein, holding that the said order was not justified. In the aforesaid Order, after elaborately dealing with the pros and cons of the issue, it has been finally held that the respondent-Bank was not justified in refusing to grant the revised scale of pay to the employees of the petitioner-Union on par with the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust. Further, this Court considered various aspects including the one that the respondent Bank has been running on profit for the past 73 years and declaring maximum dividend to its members share capital every year and also, there was a settlement entered into between the petitioner-Union with the respondent-Bank as provided u/s 18(1) and 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 25.9.2000 and the same has been approved by way of Resolution. Pointing out the same, it is submitted that when the proceedings passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Credit), Chennai, refusing to grant pay scales in accordance with the Settlement entered u/s 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, were set aside by this Court, there is no justification for the contesting respondents to deny the benefit of revised pay scales to the employees of the Bank, who are members of the petitioner Union, on par with the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust. It is further contended that, as per the settlement u/s 18(1) of the Act reached on 25.9.2000, when the Bank granted revision of pay scale with effect from October, 2008, refusal to pay only the arrears from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008, is not only unjustified but also contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 16965 of 2000. On that basis, the petitioner has prayed for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.
4. Mr. Karthik Mukundan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank submits that the employees of the petitioner Union are not entitled to get the scale of pay on par with the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust for the reason that Rule -149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules enjoins upon every society to frame by-laws fixing the scales of pay and, in the absence of the society fixing its own wages in accordance with the administrative instructions issued by the superior officers in the cooperative Department, the employees of the Society cannot rely upon the by-laws of the Chennai Port Trust and incorporate the scales of pay of the Chennai Port Trust as the scales of pay of the Society. Secondly, it is argued that when the Government have also issued G.O. No. 89, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 16.5.2000, prescribing the scales of pay and allowances to be adopted by the Employees Cooperative Societies in general, the Society, which is governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, is obliged to adopt the pay scales as prescribed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 89. While so, adoption of the Scales of pay exclusively applicable to the Port Trust for the employees of the Bank is in total violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. So submitting, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard Mr. K.V. Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondents-1 and 4.
6. Having carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on either side, even at the outset, I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank do not merit acceptance at all in the light of the order, dated 10.9.2008, passed by this Court in W.P. No. 16965 of 2000, whereby, this Court has categorically held that there was a Settlement dated 25.9.2000 entered into between the petitioner-Union and the respondent-Bank under Sections 18(1) and 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as per By-law 27 of the Bank, the Board of Directors were given the power to prescribe from time to time the scale of pay of office establishment and to incur such expenditure as may be necessary for the management of the Bank with reference to the scale of pay and allowances in conformity with the pay scale and allowances of the employees of Chennai Port Trust and only on the basis of the said by-law, the Bank has already entered into settlements under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act with the petitioner-Union with regard to the pay scale and allowances of the employees for all these years. When the said settlement was also implemented by the respondent-Bank by paying the salary with effect from October, 2008, on par with the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust, the reluctance and refusal on the part of the Bank to pay the arrears of salary with effect from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008 on par with the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust cannot be justified. Nowhere the Bank has pleaded either in the present proceedings or in the earlier writ petition to the effect that the Bank has no power to enter into such a settlement on the ground that its financial position was not in a favourable condition so as to give better scale of pay to the employees. Therefore, the endeavour on the part of the respondents to re-open an issue that has already been settled in the earlier proceedings should not be encouraged.
7. Besides, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that the Bank is obliged to adopt the pay scales as prescribed in G.O. No. 89 will not stand to any logic or reasoning inasmuch as Clause-4 of the said G.O. specifically says that the package of pay and allowances ordered in the G.O. shall be made available only if the employees agree to accept them through a fresh settlement made u/s 12(3) or Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 in consultation with the State Level Employees Union and Circle Deputy Registrars. Thus, the G.O. itself envisages for settlement and such settlement arrived at on 25.9.2000 between the petitioner-union and the respondent-Bank can never be faulted with. More over, when the Union had filed earlier W.P. No. 16965 of 2000, this Court, by order dated 10.9.2008, specifically referred to the settlement dated 25.9.2000 reached u/s 18(1) of the ID Act and observed that it is not in the interest of the employees as well as the Society to unsettle the settlement. Also, the contesting respondents did not challenge the settlement reached. Thus, having accepted the settlement dated 25.9.2000 which is in tune with G.O. No. 89, the respondent-Bank cannot once again take a different stand that the petitioner-Union and the Bank are obliged to adopt the pay scales as prescribed by G.O. No. 89.
8. Further, it is not out of context to re-state one more vital aspect. The respondent-Bank has been running on profit for the past 73 years and declaring maximum dividend to its members share capital every year and further, after making a profit of Rs. 97,45,710/- in the year 2001-02, the profit rate steeply increased to Rs. 1,18,68,297/- in the year 2007-08. Therefore, there is no budgetary constraint for the Bank to withhold the arrears amount payable to the employees for the period from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008.
8-A. At any rate, inasmuch as the claims and issues raised here had already been decided by this Court in the earlier writ proceedings as stated above, the case of the Bank is undone due to operation of the principle of res judicata. The settled legal position is that a judicial decision is deemed final when it leaves nothing to be judicially determined or ascertained thereafter, in order to render it effective and capable of execution, and is absolute, complete, and certain, and when it is not lawfully subject to subsequent recission, review or modification by the Judicial Forum which pronounced it. Reference can be had from Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Others JT (2005) 11 SC 439
29. The object and purport of principle of res judicata as contained in Section 11 of the CPC is to uphold the rule of conclusiveness of judgment, as to the points decided earlier of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. Once the matter which was the subject-matter of lis stood determined by a competent Court, no party thereafter can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. Such a rule was brought into the statute book with a view to bring the litigation to an end so that the other side may not be put to harassment.
30. The principle of res judicata envisages that a judgment of Court of concurrent jurisdiction directly upon the point would create a bar as regards a plea between the same parties upon some other matter directly in question in another Court, where the said plea seeks to raise afresh the very point that was determined in the earlier judgment.
In the same line, in
In order to sustain the plea of res judicata it is not necessary that all the parties to the two litigations must be common. All that is necessary is that the issue should be between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim.
Further, in
9. In this view of the matter, as the principle of res judicata is applicable to the present case by reason of the issue raised herein having already been decided by this Court in W.P. No. 16965 of 2000 vide order dated 10.9.2008 which makes it clear that the settlement was reached only based on G.O. Ms. No. 89, dated 16.5.2000; that such settlement was very much acted upon by the petitioner-union and the respondent-Bank and that more over, already pay scale revision has been given effect to and what is to be paid is only the arrears for the period between 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008, this Court finds no ground or valid reason whatsoever to sustain the impugned order. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent-Bank to pay arrears on the pay scales to the employees, for the period from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008, but, without any interest thereon. No costs.
