IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 3026 of 2000(I)
1. RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION EMPLOYEES
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.V.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
O.P. NO. 3026 OF 2000 (I)
=====================
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are trade unions representing the workers of the
Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation.
2. In this original petition, the prayer sought is to declare
that the employees of the Marketing Federation are entitled to the
benefits granted by the Government as per Ext.P1. On that basis,
they are also seeking to quash Ext.P3.
3. Ext.P1 is an order issued by the Government of Kerala
providing that in respect of the employees of the primary co-
operative societies, for the purpose of HRA, TA and DA, notional
pay will be quantified adding 148% DA to their basic pay.
Petitioner submits that by Ext.P2, HRA was ordered to be paid to
the employees of the Marketing Federation based on Ext.P1.
However, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued Ext.P3
communication directing to stop payment on the basis of Ext.P2
and to recover the excess amount paid. It is thereupon that this
OP was filed.
4. In this original petition, what is mainly urged is the
OP No.3026/2000
:2 :
claim of the petitioners for HRA and TA. According to the
petitioners, the employees of the primary co-operative societies
are being paid on the basis of Ext.P1, by adding 148% of the DA
to the basic pay and treating the same as the notional pay. It is
stated that if that be so, there is no reason why the employees of
the apex societies like Marketing Federation should be
discriminated and paid HRA and DA on a different basis to their
disadvantage. Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this
Court in Raman v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (1978
KLT S.N.88) and also Cochin Co-operative Hospital v.
Annamma (1998(1) KLT 801).
5. Respondent 1 has filed a counter affidavit. According
to the respondents, the applicability of Ext.P1 is confined to the
employees of the primary co-operative societies alone. It is
stated that it was despite an order that was issued requiring the
3rd respondent not to extend the benefit of Ext.P1 to the
employees of the Marketing Federation, that Ext.P2 was issued
without obtaining any approval from the 1st respondent. It is
stated that it being an erroneous payment, they were justified in
issuing Ext.P3. It is also pointed out that the employees of the
OP No.3026/2000
:3 :
Apex Society and the Primary Co-operative Societies were always
governed by different set of conditions of service and in so far as
the employees of the federation are concerned, they were
governed by Ext.R1(a) order dated 28/4/1997 whereby pay and
other benefits were revised w.e.f. 1/1/95. It is stated that in so far
as the primary societies are concerned, their pay was revised by
separate orders w.e.f. 1/1/96 and it was consequently that Ext.P1
was issued. In effect, what is contended is that the employees of
the apex society were always treated as a class different from the
employees of the primary co-operative societies.
6. As already stated, the plea now is confined to equality
in so far as HRA and TA alone. Petitioners are the employees of
Apex Society and what they are claiming is parity with the
employees of primary societies. Plea of discrimination can be
sustained only if the petitioners succeed in establishing that the
employees of the apex societies and the employees of the
primary societies belong to one class of employees.
7. In my view, there is absolutely no material to
substantiate this plea. That apart, respondents have specifically
stated that the employees of the apex society and the employees
OP No.3026/2000
:4 :
of the primary society are governed by different conditions of
service including pay revision orders. The benefits enjoyed by
these two sets of employees are also separate. If that be so, I
must conclude that they belong to different classes of employees
and as a consequence thereof, I cannot accept the plea of
discrimination now raised by the petitioners.
Original petition therefore cannot be allowed and hence
dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp