Writ petitions seeking service benefits from autonomous cooperative banks are not maintainable absent a public-law duty.

The Bank appealed orders allowing writ petitions by former employees and directing payment of interest at 9% per annum on delayed gratuity and leave encashment, from retirement until payment, and on arrear salary for the period 1 May to 30 November 2014.

The employees had retired after 1 February 2013, the date from which employees of cooperative credit structure entities were excluded from Rule 106 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2011.

The Bank challenged both the writ petitions’ maintainability and the asserted statutory obligation to pay interest; the Division Bench allowed the appeals.

1. Whether writ petitions under Article 226 were maintainable to claim interest on delayed service-related payments from the cooperative bank, where the claims arose from the employer–employee relationship and a statutory dispute-resolution mechanism was available.

2. Whether the Bank was statutorily obliged to pay interest under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, or Rule 106 and its Appendix, to employees who retired after 1 February 2013.

Section 134C(2) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 grants cooperative credit structure entities autonomy in financial and internal administrative matters, including staff posting and compensation.

Section 102 of that Act provides a forum before the Registrar for specified disputes concerning a cooperative society and its past employees.

Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 requires simple interest on delayed gratuity where that provision governs the employer and employee.

Rule 106 and its Appendix to Chapter V did not apply to the relevant employees who retired after the 1 February 2013 cut-off.

Under Ram Chandra Choudhary v. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd., a writ against a non-State body requires a public-law element; statutory regulation alone does not convert an internal employment dispute into one of public law, and the nature of the duty and availability of an alternative remedy are relevant.

The Court also relied on Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas for the principle that regulatory supervision alone does not make a cooperative society or private body amenable to writ jurisdiction in a private employment dispute.

The Court treated the claims as disputes between the Bank and its former employees, not as enforcement of a public duty.

Because the employees retired after the cut-off date, Rule 106 and its Appendix did not govern them; the Bank therefore had no obligation under those provisions to pay the claimed interest.

Although Section 7(3A) provides for interest when applicable, the Court held that the writ petitioners could not enforce that provision by mandamus against the Bank in these circumstances.

The dispute could instead be raised under Section 102 of the 2006 Act or pursued through other remedies available in law; if the employees considered the Gratuity Act applicable, they could approach the authority under that Act.

The Court left open the merits of the claims, including the allegation that similarly situated employees had received interest, for consideration by the appropriate forum.

The employees were left at liberty to pursue a dispute under the 2006 Act or other remedies in law; all merits, including the claim of unequal treatment, were kept open for the proper forum.

The Registrar General was directed to release the amounts deposited in the appeals, together with any accrued interest.