Judgment : 1. The petitioner union has come up with the present writ petition for a declaration, declaring that the order of the first respondent dated 19.1.2012 in so far as clause Nos.1 and 3 and the consequential order of the third respondent dated 22.4.2012 in so far as clause Nos.1 and 7 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently, to direct the respondents to revise the pay scale of the employees in terms of the revision of wages made in respect of employees working in the Chennai Port Trust pursuant to the settlement entered under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 19.1.2010 with effect from 1.1.2007 and pay arrears. 2. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is set out hereunder:- (a) The petitioner union has been registered under the trade Union Act. All the employees employed in the fourth respondent Society viz., the Chennai Port Trust Employees Cooperative Bank Limited, are members of the petitioner union. At present, there are 15 employees in the fourth respondent society. But, the present writ petition has been filed only in respect of 39 employees of which 24 had already retired. Since the 24 retired employees were also members of the petitioner union, they are also entitled for the revision of wages from 1.1.2007 till the date of their respective retirement. (b) The fourth respondent Bank is a registered society under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Registration Act. The said society has been constituted by the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust and the membership of the society was restricted to those who are the employees of the Chennai Port Trust. The fourth respondent society has been established in the year 1927 with an objective to develop thrift among the employees working the Chennai Port Trust. The fourth respondent society has also been functioning with huge profits. The pay scale of the employees working in the fourth respondent society were on par with the employees of the Chennai Port Trust. Consequently, as and when wages were revised for the employees of the Chennai Port Trust, the same was extended to the employees of the fourth respondent society also. However, in the case of officers, the wage revision was made after suitable board resolution to that effect. Consequently, as and when wages were revised for the employees of the Chennai Port Trust, the same was extended to the employees of the fourth respondent society also. However, in the case of officers, the wage revision was made after suitable board resolution to that effect. In so far as other employees are concerned, the fourth respondent society entered into a settlement with the employees as provided under Section 18(1) and 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (c) As per Bye-law No.27 of the fourth respondent society, the Board of Directors were given 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 society with reference to the scale of pay and allowances in conformity with the pay scale and allowances of the employees of the Chennai Port Trust. Similarly, on the basis of the said bye-law, the fourth respondent society has been entering 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 several years. The fourth respondent society entered into a settlement dated 25.9.2000 with the petitioner union to revise the wages as revised to the employees of the Chennai Port Trust and the fourth respondent resolved to direct the Secretary of the Society to pay the revised wage from September, 2000. The said settlement and the resolution were sent to the third respondent for approval. However, the third respondent, by his order dated 26.9.2000, rejected the settlement. Hence, the petitioner union filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.16965 of 2000 questioning the order of the third respondent. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court. (d) While situation stood thus, the Chennai Port Trust revised the wages on 1.7.2008 with effect from 1.1.2007. But the fourth respondent revised the wages from October, 2008 and failed to give the revision of wages from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008. Hence, the petitioner union approached the second respondent by filing revision petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The said revision petition was taken on file as Revision No.5 of 2009 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 4.12.2009. Hence, the petitioner union approached the second respondent by filing revision petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The said revision petition was taken on file as Revision No.5 of 2009 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 4.12.2009. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.25821 of 2009 and consequently to direct the respondents to implement the revision of wages from 1.1.2007 and to pay arrears from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court, by an order dated 15.7.2011 and the fourth respondent society was directed to pay arrears for the period from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008. Thereafter, the fourth respondent society released the arrears to the employees. (e) While so, the Chennai Port Trust had entered into a settlement with the petitioner union under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 19.1.2010 and the wages of the employees have been revised. The settlement benefits have been given with effect from 1.1.2007. The terms of the settlement in respect of revision of wages is equally applicable to the employees of the fourth respondent society. When that being the position, the first respondent issued an order dated 19.1.2012, directing the fourth respondent to send proposal for wage revision for the period of five years from 1.1.2007 based on the norms prescribed in its proceedings dated 7.12.2010 and further directing the fourth respondent to amend the bye-law No.27 in tune with Rule 149(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988. In continuation of this communication, the third respondent has issued an order dated 22.4.2012. In the said order, he has directed the fourth respondent to submit proof for amending bye-law No.27 and send proposal for wage revision based on the Registrar's proceedings dated 7.12.2010. Without considering the two earlier orders passed in W.P.Nos.16965 of 2000 and 25821 of 2009, the third respondent passed the impugned order to amend bye-law No.27. Hence, the fourth respondent sent a representation stating that the employees are being paid wages on par with the Chennai Port Trust employees. However, respondents 1 to 3 have not granted permission. The fourth respondent has also passed a resolution on 10.7.2013 to revise the wages of the employees on par with the employees of the Chennai Port Trust. The said resolution was submitted to the first respondent. However, respondents 1 to 3 have not granted permission. The fourth respondent has also passed a resolution on 10.7.2013 to revise the wages of the employees on par with the employees of the Chennai Port Trust. The said resolution was submitted to the first respondent. Even though, the wages have not been revised. Hence, the petitioner union has come up with the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 3. This Court, by an order dated 30.7.2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2013, granted an order of interim injunction restraining respondents 1 and 3 from continuing to give effect to the order of the first respondent dated 19.1.2012 bearing R.C.No.108270/2009/B11 in so far as clause Nos.1 and 3 and the consequential order of the third respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.470/2012 Na.Va.dated 22.4.2012 in so far as clause Nos.1 and 7. 4. On appearance, respondents 1 to 3 have filed an application in M.P.No.3 of 2013 to vacate the interim injunction granted by this Court, along with the counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated as follows:- (a) Chennai Port Trust Employees Cooperative Bank X-31 is a cooperative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. Hence, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 are applicable to the society. Sub rule (1) of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 provides that every society shall, taking into account its nature of business, volume of transaction and financial position, adopt Special bye-law governing the service conditions of the employees and the special bye-law shall inter alia prescribe (i) cadre strength (ii) method of recruitment, (iii) the scale of pay and allowances for each such post etc. Though the functioning of the cooperative societies are governed by their registered bye-laws, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws of the society. (b) As per Rule 149(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 the scale of pay and allowances of the employees of the cooperative societies shall be prescribed in the special bye-laws with the prior approval of the Board. That is, the salary of the employees of the cooperative societies shall be as prescribed by the cooperative societies. (b) As per Rule 149(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 the scale of pay and allowances of the employees of the cooperative societies shall be prescribed in the special bye-laws with the prior approval of the Board. That is, the salary of the employees of the cooperative societies shall be as prescribed by the cooperative societies. Hence, the provisions in the bye-laws of the cooperative society with regard to fixation of the salary of its employees shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of rule 149(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules 1988, and if the provisions of the bye-laws are inconsistent with the rule provisions, the same shall not be valid. (c) In the instant case, bye-law No.27 is totally inconsistent with the Rules and as such the same is ab initio void. Now, consequent to the issuance of circular dated 7.12.2010, as an interim relief, permission was accorded for merger of 50% of Dearness allowance as on 1.1.2007 and to pay arrears from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008 to the employees of the fourth respondent society. Though the employees of the fourth respondent society are eligible for the pay and allowances approved by the Registrar, they got their pay revised on par with the employees of the Chennai Port Trust, for which they are not legally entitled. By an apparent error, the pay of the employees of the Chennai Port Trust Employees Cooperative Bank has been revised for which they are not entitled. Hence, the impugned order was passed to amend the bye-law No.27 in terms of the provisions of Rule 149(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988. Hence, the order of interim injunction granted by this Court is liable to be vacated. 5. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. The sum and substance of the said counter affidavits, are as follows:- (a) 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(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 enjoins upon every society to frame bye-laws fixing the scale of pay and in the absence of the society fixing its own wages in accordance with the administrative instructions issued by respondents 1 to 3. The employees of the society cannot solely depend and rely upon the bye-laws of the Chennai Port Trust and incorporate the scale of pay of Chennai Port Trust as the scales of pay of the society. In fact, the Government issued G.O.No.89, Cooperative Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 16.5.2000, prescribing the scales of pay and allowances to be adopted by the employees of cooperative societies in general, the society which is governed by the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 is obliged to adopt by the scales as prescribed by the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.89. While so, the adoption of the scales of pay exclusively applicable to the Chennai Port Trust for the employees of the fourth respondent society is in total violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 made thereunder. (b) The Board of Directors are bound to follow the directions issued by the Government. Bye-law has no statutory force and hence, the directions issued by the first respondent based on the Government Orders are to be obeyed. The employees of the petitioner union cannot compare them with the applicable service condition in connection with their statutory service Rules and pay scale fixed by the Central Government since they are entirely different. Thus, the counter affidavits sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The employees of the fourth respondent society are the members of the petitioner union. The said society has been constituted by the employees working in the Chennai Port Trust. The pay scales of the employees working in the fourth respondent society were on par with the employees of the Chennai Port Trust. It is the case of the petitioner union that as and when the wages for the employees of the Chennai Port Trust were revised, the same was extended to the employees of the fourth respondent society also. In the case of officers, the wage revision was made after suitable board resolution to that effect. So far as the other employees are concerned, the fourth respondent society entered into a settlement with the employees as provided under Sections 18(1) and 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the case of officers, the wage revision was made after suitable board resolution to that effect. So far as the other employees are concerned, the fourth respondent society entered into a settlement with the employees as provided under Sections 18(1) and 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As per bye-law No.27 of the fourth respondent society, the Board of Directors were given 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 society with reference to the scale of pay and allowance in conformity with the pay scale and allowances of the employees of the Chennai Port Trust. Hence, on the basis of the said bye-law, the fourth respondent society has been entering 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 several years. While so, now the first respondent directed the fourth respondent society to amend bye-law No.27 in tune with Rule 149(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In continuation of this communication, the third respondent viz., the Deputy Registrar (Credit) has issued an order dated 22.4.2012, directing the fourth respondent society to submit proof for amending bye-law No.27 and send proposal for wage revision based on the Registrar's proceedings dated 7.12.2010. Aggrieved over the same, now, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner union that on earlier occasions, the fourth respondent society, on the basis of bye-law No.27 entered into a settlement dated 25.9.2000 with the petitioner union revising the wages as revised to the employees of the Chennai Port Trust. When the said resolution was sent to the third respondent for approval, the same was rejected by the third respondent. When the said rejection order was challenged by the petitioner union by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.16965 of 2000, this Court directed the respondents to pay wages in terms of the settlement dated 25.9.2000. When the said resolution was sent to the third respondent for approval, the same was rejected by the third respondent. When the said rejection order was challenged by the petitioner union by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.16965 of 2000, this Court directed the respondents to pay wages in terms of the settlement dated 25.9.2000. Subsequently, once again, when the fourth respondent society failed to give revision of wages from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008 on par with the employees of the Chennai Port Trust, the petitioner union approached the second respondent by filing a revision petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the said revision petition was dismissed. When the said order of dismissal was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.25821 of 2009, this Court allowed the said writ petition and directed the fourth respondent society to pay the arrears from 1.1.2007 to 30.9.2008. In spite of the earlier directions given by this Court, now, the first respondent issued an order to amend the bye-law No.27 of the fourth respondent society. Only based on the said bye-law, the fourth respondent society has entered into a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act. When earlier occasions, the pay revisions were confirmed by this Court in two writ petitions, the impugned order of the first respondent directing the fourth respondent society to amend bye-law No.27 is illegal. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3, by inviting the attention of this Court to Rule 149(1) of the said Rules, submitted that as per Rule 149(1) of the said Rules, the scale of pay and allowances of the employees of all the cooperative societies should be in conformity with the said Rules. As per bye-law No.27, the Board of Directors were given powers to prescribe the scale of pay of office establishment with reference to the scale of pay and allowances in conformity with the scale of pay and allowances of the employees of the Chennai Port Trust. Since the members of the petitioner union cannot compare them with the scale of pay and allowance fixed by the Central Government to its employees, bye-law No.27 has to be amended since the same is not conformity with Rule 149(1) of the said Rules. Since the members of the petitioner union cannot compare them with the scale of pay and allowance fixed by the Central Government to its employees, bye-law No.27 has to be amended since the same is not conformity with Rule 149(1) of the said Rules. The first respondent is having power under Section 12 of the said Act to direct the societies to amend the bye-laws. But, this question was not dealt with in the earlier writ petitions. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that it is incorrect to state that by virtue of the earlier orders passed in the above two writ petitions, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 9. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 that bye-law No.27 has to be amended because the employees of the petitioner union cannot compare them with the applicable service conditions of the employees of the Chennai Port Trust since their statutory service Rules and pay scale fixed by the Central Government are entirely different. 10. I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 11. On a perusal of the materials available on record, I find that whenever the wages were revised for the employees of the Chennai Port Trust, by virtue of bye-law No.27 of the fourth respondent society, the Board of Directors, by passing appropriate resolutions, provided scale of pay and allowances in conformity with the scale of pay and allowances of the employees of the Chennai Port Trust. Since the members of the petitioner union cannot compare them with the service conditions of the employees of the Chennai Port Trust in connection with their statutory service rules and pay scales fixed by the Central Government, the first respondent found that bye-law No.27 is not in conformity with Rule 149(1) of the said Rules. Hence, he has passed the impugned order dated 19.1.2012 to amend bye-law No.27. But, it is the contention of the petitioner union that on earlier occasions, when the third respondent refused to approve the pay scale of the members of the fourth respondent society on par with the employees of the Chennai Port Trust, this Court set aside the said orders. But, I find that in those writ petitions, the power of the Registrar to direct the societies to amend the bye-laws was not the subject matter. But, I find that in those writ petitions, the power of the Registrar to direct the societies to amend the bye-laws was not the subject matter. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the findings rendered in the said writ petitions cannot be made applicable to the issue involved in the present writ petition. As per Section 12 of the said Act, the Registrar has power to direct the society to amend the bye-laws if the bye-laws are not in conformity with the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Society Rules. Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act reads thus:- ''12.Power to direct amendment of bye-laws:- (1) Where the Registrar is satisfied that, for the purpose of altering the area of operation of a registered society or for the purpose of improving the services rendered by it or for any other purpose specified in the Rules, an amendment of the bye-laws is necessary, he may, after consulting in the manner prescribed the board of the financing bank, if any, to which the society is affiliated, by notice in writing, call upon the society to show cause, within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the amendment should not be made: Provided that if the board of the financing bank does not communicate its comments within sixty days of the receipt of the communication from the registrar in this regard, it shall be deemed that the board of the financing bank has no comments to make on the amendment proposed to the bye-laws under this sub-section. (2) If, within the time specified in the notice referred to in sub-section (1), the registered society fails to make the amendment, the Registrar may, after giving the society an opportunity of making its representations, register the amendment and issue to the society a copy of such amendment. (3) Any amendment of the bye-laws registered under sub-section (2) shall have the same effect as an amendment of the bye-laws registered under section 11 unless the registration is cancelled in pursuance of a decision in appeal." By virtue of the said provision only, the present impugned order of the first respondent dated 19.1.2012 has been passed. 12. In this regard, a reference could be placed in some of the judgments relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 12. In this regard, a reference could be placed in some of the judgments relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3. (I) In the decision reported in (2007) 12 Supreme Court cases 764 – Veena Kumari Tandon vs. Neelam Bhalla and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "10. Bye-laws of the Society provides for different kinds of membership. Whereas a full-fledged member would be entitled to vote, an associate member may not be. 11. It is now a well-settled principle of law that a legislative Act shall prevail over the subordinate legislation. Bye-laws must, therefore, conform to the provisions of the Act and cannot act in derogation thereof." (II) In yet another decision reported in (1984) 2 Supreme Court Cases 50 – Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nasik and others, it has been held as follows:-" 15. ... Bye-law of a cooperative society can at best have the status of an Article of Association of a company governed by the Companies Act, 1956 and as held by this Court in Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, the bye-laws of a cooperative society framed in pursuance of the provisions of the relevant Act cannot be held to be law or to have the force of law. They are neither statutory in character nor they have statutory flavour so as to be raised to the status of law. Now, if there is any conflict between a statute and the subordinate legislation, it does not require elaborate reasoning to firmly state that the statute prevails over subordinate legislation and the bye-law if not in conformity with the statue in order to give effect to the statutory provisions the rule or bye-law has to be ignored. The statutory provision has precedence and must be complied with. ... " (III) In the decision reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 194 – Samarth Shiksha Samiti and another v. Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour and others, it has been held as follows:- "36. The statutory provision has precedence and must be complied with. ... " (III) In the decision reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 194 – Samarth Shiksha Samiti and another v. Bir Bahadur Singh Rathour and others, it has been held as follows:- "36. In answer to the second question, it must, therefore, be held that the services of respondent 1 would continue to be governed by the rules of the Samiti and not by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder, though the provisions of the Rules may have been adopted by the Samiti for its employees." A reading of the dictum laid down in the above judgments would clearly show that if the bye-laws of the society is not in confirmity with the Statue and if there is any conflict between a statue and the subordinate legislation, the first respondent is having ample power under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act to direct the Society to amend the by-law. So far as the present case is concerned, by virtue of the by-law 27, the fourth respondent is all along passing resolution and incorporating the Pay Scale of Chennai Port Trust as the scale of pay of Society. In the instant case, the first respondent found that the by-law 27 of the fourth respondent is not in conformity with the Rule 149(1) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, since the employee of the Society can not compare them with the applicable service conditions of the employees of the Chennai Port Trust since their statutory service Rules and pay scale fixed by the Central Government are totally different. Hence, the first respondent passed the impugned order. Absolutely, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders of the first respondent dated 19.1.2012 and the third respondent dated 22.4.2012. The order passed by the first respondent is only in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules. Hence, I do not fine any merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. In fine, the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.