Statutory power over co-operative society pay revisions sustained despite challenge to settlement cancellation and recovery directions.

Registrar directions under Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 were treated as valid exercises of statutory power to issue binding instructions in public interest and for proper management of co-operative societies. Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 was read as supporting regulation of service conditions and pay scales, so the consequential orders cancelling settlements contrary to those directions were held to be in conformity with the statutory framework. The earlier Division Bench decision was not treated as preventing resort to lawful statutory process, and the unchallenged original directions supported maintainability of the consequential orders under Section 166.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned directions cancelling the settlement and requiring recovery of revised pay were validly issued under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, and whether the earlier Division Bench decision precluded such action.

Analysis: The directions issued by the Registrar under Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 were found to be within the statutory power conferred to issue binding directions in public interest and for proper management of registered societies. Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 was treated as supporting the regulatory scheme governing service conditions and pay scales of employees of co-operative societies. The Court held that the later directions and the consequential orders cancelling settlements contrary to the Registrar's directions were in conformity with the statutory framework. The earlier Division Bench decision was read as leaving it open to the authorities to resort to the appropriate lawful process, and it was not treated as restricting action only under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the earlier directions of the Registrar were not challenged, the consequential orders under Section 166 of the Act were also held to be maintainable.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were upheld as legally justified and within jurisdiction, and the challenge to them failed.

---