D/L20 23.09.2026 Bpg. WPA No.23592 of 2026 Uttarpara Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Soumya Majumder Mr. Nikhil Kr. Gupta Mr. Amitabha Ghosh. …for the petitioners. Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta Mrs. Sudipa Banerjee Mr. Ankur Sharma. …for the State. Mr. Ranjan De Ms. Sneha Saha Mr. Sayan Sarkar. …for the respondent nos.6 and 7. 1. Learned counsel for the State has placed a report and a statement of facts submitted by the authorities herein dated September, 2026. 2. It appears that the authorities being the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cooperation Directorate, Hooghly Range being the Returning Officer of the petitioners‟ society has appointed two Assistant Returning Officers to conduct the election of the society vide memo No.927 dated 21.08.2026. It has further been stated that AROS have already intimated the Chief Executive Officer of the said Bank to provide them draft voter list so that they 2 can proceed with the election of BOD of the said bank. 3. Considering the said statement of facts, it is directed that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society shall proceed to conduct the election and conclude the said proceedings at the earliest. 4. Mr. Majumder, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned award dated 03.04.2024 has been passed in a reference case being No.7 of 2021 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal herein is the 3rd Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta. 5. Mr. De, learned senior counsel appearing for the Workman Union has brought the notice of this Court to paragraph 21 of the writ application wherein it appears that the chairperson on receiving a show cause notice from the tribunal had stated that she is ready and willing to comply with the ex parte award passed by the tribunal after it is placed before the Board of Directors to be constituted within a certain period. Admittedly, there is no Board of Directors since 2019. 6. The reference before the tribunal admittedly has been made prima facie when there was no Board of Directors. The award has also been passed when there is no Board of Directors. 3 7. It appears that in the interim period the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies was the special officer appointed to look after the affairs of the Co- operative Societies and it is during this period that a chairperson (?) made the statement as referred to by Mr. De, before the Tribunal, with the under taking that the ex parte award would be acted upon, after it was placed before the BOD. 8. Till date there is no BOD (Board of Directors). 9. The State has now placed documents to show steps have now been taken for elections. 10. Mr. Majumder further submits that as the Board of Directors was not in existence, the reference could not be contested properly by the petitioners herein. It is further stated that the Tribunal while deciding the issue did not discuss the Charter of Demands which was the subject matter of the reference and without any reasoned order, has passed an order as follows:- That “The Uttarpara Co-operative Bank Employee’s Union” is entitled to get their demands fulfilled as embodied in the ‘Charter of Demands’ raised by them on 11.01.2014 before the management of “The Uttarpara Co-operative Bank Ltd.” 4 11. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that Charter of Demand also includes certain demands relating to persons who do not come under the definition of “workman”. 12. It is further submitted that prima facie this is an issue which should have been considered by the Tribunal, while taking a decision when the Charter of Demands as a whole was being allowed. 13. It is this issue which shows total non-application of mind by the Tribunal, which prima facie has not taken a reasoned decision in respect of the said issue and due to absence of a Board of Directors, the petitioners could neither be represented nor raise the said issue, before the Tribunal and an award which is prima facie not in accordance with law, being prima facie perverse, cannot be executed against the petitioners. 14. It is further submitted that the person who represented that they will comply with the ex parte award, was not a person prima facie authorized to give an undertaking before the Tribunal, though the under taking was that the ex parte award would be complied with on placing the same before the BOD. 5 15. Mr. De submits that she (chairperson (?)) was duly authorized but even if this Court takes it that she was a duly authorized representative, no undertaking given for a prima facie erroneous award can be allowed to remain/or accepted, as the same would amount to gross abuse of process of law. 16. Mr De has relied upon the judgment in Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. vs OM Prakash Lal Srivastava, (2022) 3 SCC 803, (Para 17), the Supreme Court held:- “17. We would like to emphasise at the threshold that there are certain inherent legal limitations to the scrutiny of an award of a Tribunal by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We may refer to the judgment of this Court in GE Power India Ltd. V. A. Aziz. If there is no jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice or error of law apparent on the face of the record, there is no occasion for the High Court to get into the merits of the controversy as an appellate court……..” 17. In the present case, admittedly:- i. There was no BOD (Board of Directors) on the date of „reference‟, nor when the tribunal proceed to hear the reference, nor when (thus) the ex parte award was passed. 6 ii. The reference could not be contested due to the absence of BOD. The tribunal admittedly did not take notice of this fact. iii. The charter of demands includes benefits demanded for employees who admittedly are not a “workman” under the industrial dispute act. The tribunal gave no findings on this matter/issue. iv. Finally, there is absolutely no reasons in the impugned order as to the justifiability of each of the demands in the charter of demands. 18. It appears that on 11.01.2014 the then Secretary of the Employees' Union of the Petitioner Bank submitted their charter of Demand (in short COD) before the then Board of Directors (in short BOD) under the Chairmanship of Mr. Samir Ranjan Dutta. 19. Before considering the COD placed by the Employees' Union of the Petitioner Bank, vide resolution dated 13.01.2014 in special General Meeting, said B.O.D. was dissolved due to expiry of its tenure. 20. On 02.11.2014 the next BOD of the said Bank was constituted by the Co-operative Election Commission and Mr. Jayanta Das Gupta was 7 Elected Chairman of the newly Constituted BOD of the said Bank for tenure of five years and such tenure expired on 01.11.2019. 21. As the Bank was suffering huge financial loss the then BOD in its meeting held on 06.06.2015 decided to stop incremental dearness allowance of the employees following the statutory provision envisaged under Rule 106 Appendix to chapter V under sub-Rule 10 of the West Bengal Co-operative Rules 2011. 22. On 27.07.2019 a bilateral discussion was made before District Labour Tribunal, Serampore, Hooghly in response of the complaint of Employees' Union of the Petitioner Bank, regarding aforesaid COD. On behalf the bank the then Assistant Secretary of the bank stated that, if the bank management accepts the COD (Charter of Demand) of the Union at that point of time, then depositors money would be in risk-prone situation. Therefore, the management of the bank was unable to consider that COD at that point of time. 23. Resulting the dispute was un-reconciled and transferred to the third industrial tribunal as a referral case (Referral Order No. Labr/1349/(LC- IR)/22015(16)/359/2018 dated 05.08.2021 along 8 with Corrigendum bearing Order No. Labr.207/(LC- IR)/11L-31/15 dated 17.03.2022). 24. The petitioners after being served with the copy of show-cause notice dated 10.06.2022, the Chief Executive being the Petitioner No. 2 herein through its legal representative on 30.06.2022 appeared before the Tribunal and submitted a Petition in the form of an affidavit before the Third Industrial Tribunal, New Secretariat Buildings, Kolkata inter alia stating that in absence of BOD the Petitioner No. 2 being the Chief Executive is only empowered to run the regular functioning of the bank but did not have any authority to deal with the COD of Employees' Union of the Petitioner Bank and thus he prayed for staying of proceeding till formation of new B O D. It is further stated that Rule 106 Appendix to Chapter V under Sub-rule 10 of West Bengal Co- operative Societies Rule, 2011 BOD (management of the bank) is only an authority to negotiate with the issue of COD placed by the Union. The Chief Executive being one of the employee of the Bank has no authority to deal with the issue of COD. 25. The last bipartite agreement executed on 28.03.2010 by and between the then BOD and 9 the employees' union after negotiation of the previous COD of employees' union, also demonstrates that there was no role of chief executive to settle the issue of C O D. Not only that the salary etc. of the said Chief Executive was also fixed by this agreement like all other employees. Since, then the role of Chief Executive is unaltered rather he is one of the beneficiaries of the COD raised by the Employees' Union of the Petitioner Bank. By maintaining this locus standi, the chief executive was not able to play dual role (one as a beneficiary of the COD and other as a respondent of this case on behalf of the bank management) before said tribunal. 26. The petitioners state that the said Industrial Tribunal without considering the aforesaid legal embargo, vide order dated 18.01.2023 fixed the matter for ex-parte hearing and decided in favour of the Union on 09.02.2023. 27. In a cooperative bank, a Charter of Demands (COD)-which outlines employee proposals for wage revisions, service conditions, and welfare benefits, is typically resolved through a process of collective bargaining involving three primary internal and external authorities. 10 28. The charter itself is formulated, drafted, and decided upon by the recognized employee trade unions or officers' associations (such as the All India Bank Officers' Confederation (AIBOC) or state-specific bank unions). They aggregate the inputs and grievances of the staff to establish what the final demands will be. 29. The final decision to accept, negotiate, or reject the provisions within the Charter of Demands rests with the bank's Board of Directors (BoD) or its top management. 30. Because cooperative banks operate on a democratic, member-owned model, the Board is elected by shareholders to govern internal operations. 31. The management team negotiates with the union and ultimately approves the bipartite settlement based on the financial health and paying capacity of the cooperative bank. 32. While the management and unions decide the specific terms of the demand, they cannot act independently of macro regulatory guidelines. 33. For single-state cooperative banks, administrative, staff-strength, and management approvals frequently must align with the rules set by the state's RCS. 11 34. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) enforces the banking policies, financial prudence, and corporate governance standards. A cooperative bank cannot agree to financial commitments in a Charter of Demands that violate the capital adequacy or prudential norms laid down by the RBI. 35. From the said facts on record, it appears that there has been violation of natural justice and in view of the facts on record and observations made herein and also the relevant provisions of law, there is clearly an error of law apparent on the face of the record and the impugned order/award is thus liable to be set aside. 36. But also considering the case of the employees herein, which is admittedly pending for a long time, interest of justice requires, that the same be considered at the earliest. 37. Accordingly the State authorities shall make all endeavour to complete the formation/constitution of the BOD within three months from the date of this order. 38. The BOD shall then taken a reasoned decision in respect of the pending charter of 12 demand, in accordance with law, with two months thereafter. 39. The impugned award/order dated 03.04.2024, passed in reference case No.7 of 2021, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the 3rd Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, thus not being in accordance with law is set aside. 40. WPA 23592 of 2026 is allowed. 41. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of. 42. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 43. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)