The Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 prevails over the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, indicating the special nature of laws governing employee rights during suspension.

1.In Deputy Labour Commissioner v. Emmanual, 1979 KLT 392, a Division Bench of this court (Gopalan Nambiyar, C. J and Balagangadharan Nair, J.) held that the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 (Act 27 of 1973) will override the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (Act 21 of 1969).

2. A contention that the above judgment did not consider "important questions based on S.2(c) of Act 27 of 1973, R.198(6) of the Cooperative Societies Rules and the decision in AIR 1963 SC 1561" persuaded Namboodiripad, J. to refer the matter to be heard by a Division Bench.

3. We may straightaway point out that the submission of counsel about the non consideration of S.2(c) of Act 27 of 1973 and R.198(6) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 is not correct. The Division Bench has made specific reference to the section and the rule in Para.3 of its judgment. In the course of its discussion, the Division Bench observed:
"The definition of an 'establishment' is given in S.2(c) of the Act. It is unnecessary to refer to the same ............"
The entire R.198(6) had been extracted earlier in the same paragraph of the judgment The effect and impact of that rule had been considered towards the concluding portion of that paragraph, as also in the last sentence in Para.4 of the judgment.

4. The Division Bench examined the scheme, the purpose and the object of the two enactments and came to the conclusion that the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act must be regarded as a special Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in The U. P. State Electricity Board and another v. Hari Shanker Jain and others, AIR 1979 SC 65 was relied on in support of the above conclusion. Apart from the general principles, S.5 gave a very clear indication about the intention of the Legislature to subordinate other enactments covering the same field, to the provisions of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, except in the limited contingency where the provisions of the other enactments are more advantageous to the workmen.

5. We are in full agreement with the analysis of the scheme of the two enactments as made by the Division Bench.

6. The cooperative movement had been fairly strong in the State of Kerala. The former Madras Presidency, of which the Malabar area of the present State forms a substantial part, was one of those provinces, which introduced an Act dealing with Cooperative Societies way back in 1932-34. The establishments run by the Cooperative Societies were not insignificant in number or inconsiderable in efficacy. The Administration Report of the Department for 1973-74 would indicate that 4361 Societies were active in the State at that time. (See Appendix 1). The Report also would indicate how the working of these establishments had permeated into the life and activities of the people, particularly those in the rural areas. It is quite reasonable to think that the Legislature did attach importance to an enduring industrial peace in these establishments. It is quite conceivable that the Legislature also intended to create a sense of security amongst the employees of such societies and protect them from avoidable harassment arising out of long pending disciplinary proceedings, leaving them in the cold. The objects and reasons of the Bill which ultimately became Act 27 of 1973 would give a clue to, and throw light upon, the legislative intent of the Legislature. Having regard to the background of the enactment, we are of the view that it was farthest from the intention of the Legislature to exclude the employees in the service of the numerous Cooperative Societies, from the purview of the Act.

7. The Cooperative Soc