Every illegal order of suspension or termination would not ipso facto amount to violation of Article 21 of Constitution.

Prabha Sridevan, J.

The question posed before the Full Bench is whether the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution of India can be invoked in each and every case of suspension, termination or other orders passed in relation to the services of an employee of a co-operative society and whether a writ petition can be filed on that basis.

2 (i) The appellant claims to have been given charge as a Secretary of the second respondent-Co-operative Society from 01-09-2006. On 23-01-2007, one Pitchandi was transferred as Secretary of the second respondent. Since the appellant feared that his avenue of promotion would be curtailed, he filed W.P.No.6712 of 2007 to quash the order dated 23-01-2007. Interim order was granted on 26-02-2007 and the petitioner continued as Secretary in the second respondent-society. Thereafter, the second respondent placed the appellant under suspension by order dated 14-03-2007 allegedly in order to circumvent the order of stay.

(ii) The petitioner filed W.P.No.11069 of 2007 to quash the said order of suspension. This was dismissed by the learned Judge on 26-03-2007 relying on the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in K. Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal, 2006 (4) C.T.C. 689.

(iii) On 13-04-2007, W.P. No.6712 of 2007 was allowed and the order appointing the outsider Pitchandi as a Secretary in the Second respondent Bank was set aside. The second respondent has now issued a charge memo dated 09-04-2007 alleging misconduct for not allowing the outsider to join as Secretary.

(iv) Aggrieved therein, the petitioner filed W.A.No.968 of 2007 against W.P.No.11069 of 2007.

3. When the matter came up for admission it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in The Special Officer, The Nazarath Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vs.

C. Deva Anbu, 2007 (3) C.T.C. 17, the Division Bench of this Court sitting in Madurai Bench had held that the right of wages of an employee is an integral part to the right to livelihood as held by the Supreme Court in Konavalov Vs. Commander, Coast Guard Region, (2006) 4 S.C.C. 620 and therefore, there is a violation of the fundamental rights viz., Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in these circumstances, it is not necessary that the petitioner should seek the alternative remedy. In order to clarify the position and remove the misconceptions that may arise, this matter has been referred to the Full Bench.

4. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae. He assisted the Court. Mr. Jeremiah, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Raja Kalifullah, learned Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the respondents. We record our appreciation of the counsel and in particular, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for placing the relevant decisions and assisting the Court.

5. In Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2006 (4) C.T.C. 689, the Larger Bench of this Court laid down certain propositions for guidance as to when a writ petition will lie against a co-operative society. Clause Nos.3 and 4 are relevant and are, therefore, extracted:

"(iii) Even if a society cannot be characterised as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, a Writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the society. In such a case, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the society is being treated as a person and an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution and what is material is the nature of the statutory duty placed upon it and the Court will enforce such statutory public duty. Although it is not easy to define what a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably said that such functions are similar to or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity.

(iv) A society, which is not a State would not normally be amenable to the writ jurisdiction unde