SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. SURENDER, JJ. 
The Tamil Nadu Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Joint Director and Managing Director - Appellant 
Versus
The Joint Commissioner of Labour/ Appellate Authority Salem – Respondent
WA No. 722 of 2026 and CMP No. 7351 of 2026 
Decided On : 23-03-2026 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Haja Nasirudeen, Additional Advocate General assisted by P.Hari Babu
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Kumaravel, Addl.Govt.Pleader, Mr.P.Chandrasekar

Special Co-operative Societies Act prevails over general Shops Act; appeal under Shops Act not maintainable for co-operative bank employees.

Headnote:The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, being a special enactment, governs service conditions and disciplinary proceedings of employees in co-operative banks registered thereunder, including approved special bye-laws designating the Managing Director as disciplinary authority and Registrar as revisional authority (Sections 153, 154). Essential facts involve departmental proceedings against a bank inspector for pledging spurious jewels, resulting in dismissal upheld by enquiry officer, challenged via appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, allowed by Joint Commissioner of Labour, confirmed by writ court with reinstatement. Court finds the Shops Act inapplicable due to exemption under Section 4(1)(f) as co-operative societies are governed by separate special law. Primary issue: Maintainability of appeal under Section 41 of Shops Act for co-operative bank employees. Ratio: Special law prevails over general; Shops Act exempts establishments under separate state law (Section 4(1)(f)); limited reference to Shops Act Section 35 in bye-laws for fines does not imply overall applicability; employees must exhaust remedies under Co-operative Societies Act and bye-laws (paras 4, 12, 16). Writ appeal allowed; impugned orders set aside for lack of jurisdiction; respondent at liberty to approach appropriate forum under special bye-laws.

Table of Content
1. dismissal after disciplinary proceedings for spurious jewels pledge. (Para 2 , 3)
2. shops act appeal not maintainable under special co-operative act. (Para 4 , 5)
3. section 4(1)(f) exempts co-operative banks governed by special law. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16)
4. rejects employee's forum choice argument. (Para 7 , 15)
5. sets aside orders; directs remedy under bye-laws. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

Judgment :

S.M.Subramaniam J.

Under assail is the common order dated 03.02.2026 passed in W.P.No.23358 of 2024 etc. batch.

2. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Cooperative Bank Limited is the appellant in the intra-court appeal. The 2nd respondent Mr.T.Muthuraja was holding the post of Bank Inspector in the appellant's Cooperative Bank. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the allegation of pledging spurious jewels for sanctioning the loan and the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service, on the basis of the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, holding that the charges are held proved.

3. The 2nd respondent filed an application before the competent authority /Joint Commissioner of Labour, under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishmenta Act, 1947. The said appeal was filed under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. The Joint Commissioner of Labour/competent authority, allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of dismissal. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred a writ petition. The writ court granted the additional relief of reinstatement, continuity of service along with the monetary benefits, by confirming the order passed by the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. Having aggrieved, the Industrial Co-operative Bank preferred the present appeal.

4. Mr.Haja Nasiruddin, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that the appeal under Section 41 of the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947, before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, is not maintainable. Therefore, the said preliminary issue has to be decided in the present appeal. To substantiate the issue regarding maintainability, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the appellant Cooperative Bank is registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Under the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Society Act, the service conditions, as approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, would apply to the employees of the Co-operative Bank and under the bye law, the Managing Director of the Co-operative Bank is the disciplinary authority. The Registrar is the revisional authority. In the present case, the Managing Director/Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service. Therefore, the appeal would lie under the bye-laws before the Industrial Commissioner/Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. Thereafter, a review is contemplated under Section 154 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and any person aggrieved thereafter from and out of those orders may prefer a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This being the scheme under the Act, the special enactment will prevail over the general law. When Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act being a special enactment, application filed before the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, is not maintainable.

5. In support of the above contentions, the learned Additional Advocate General would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.V.Raman vs. Management of Bank of India and another reported in (1998)3 SCC 105 wherein the issue relating to the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and paragraph Nos.16, 17 & 18 of the said judgment are extracted as follows:

16. As regards the first reason referred to above we have already

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top