Appeals Dismissed: Writ Petitions Maintainable; TN Act Applies to Co-ops; Regularization Can't Validate Illegal Hires.

The appeals were dismissed, affirming the HC's decision that writ petitions are maintainable and the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, applies to cooperative societies. The Division Bench ruled that G.O.Ms. No. 86, dated 12.3.2001, does not permit regularization of appointments violating statutory rules, including those lacking requisite qualifications or exceeding cadre strength. Regularization is not a recruitment method and cannot legitimize illegal appointments. The court emphasized adherence to statutory rules, rejecting regularization based on long service or compassionate grounds without due process.

---

---

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 petitions
The writ petitions were held to be maintainable.

Issue 2: Applicability of the 1981 Act and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The 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 Act
The 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.

---