TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals Dismissed: Writ Petitions Maintainable; TN Act Applies to Co-ops; Regularization Can't Validate Illegal Hires.</h1> <h3>A. Umarani Versus Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors.</h3> A. Umarani Versus Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors. - 2004 AIR 4504, 2004 (7) SCC 112, 2004 (6) JT 110, 2004 (6) SCALE 350 Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the writ petitions.2. Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to cooperative societies.3. Validity of G.O.Ms. No. 86, dated 12.3.2001, regarding regularization of appointments.4. Entitlement of illegal appointees to statutory protection of regularization and permanent status.5. Protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for personnel not covered by the previous issue.Summary:Issue 1: Maintainability of the writ petitionsThe writ petitions were held to be maintainable.Issue 2: Applicability of the 1981 Act and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The court decided that the 1981 Act is applicable to the employees of the Cooperative Societies.Issues 3, 4, and 5: Validity of G.O.Ms. No. 86, Regularization, and Protection under the Industrial Disputes ActThe Division Bench held that the provisions of the 1981 Act would not apply to appointments made in violation of statutory rules. The G.O.Ms. No. 86 dated 12.3.2001 only authorized regularization of employees recruited between 9.7.1980 and 11.3.2001, exempting the requirement to notify the Employment Exchange. However, it did not exempt other statutory conditions. The court further directed compliance with specific rules and procedures for recruitment and regularization, emphasizing that appointments violating statutory rules, including those made without requisite qualifications or beyond cadre strength, could not be regularized.Additional Observations:- The court emphasized that regularization is not a mode of recruitment and cannot cure appointments made in violation of statutory provisions.- It was noted that appointments made on compassionate grounds without following due procedures are also illegal.- The court rejected the plea for regularization based on long service, stating that sympathy cannot override statutory requirements.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed, and the court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for appointments and regularization in cooperative societies.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
