JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.]

Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.20648 of 2019, dated 26.09.201, the Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal.

Brief facts of the case:

2.The Writ Petitioner Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society, who was providing financial assistance to the employees of the respondent Corporation. The Writ Petitioner had requested that the respondent Corporation to deduct the entire balance due by the terminated or resigned employees/ loanees in respect of the debts due to the Writ Petitioner Society. However, the said request was negatived by the respondent Corporation vide order impugned in the Writ Petition, dated 05.08.2019.

3.Hence, the Writ Petitioner Society has preferred the above Writ Petition in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking to quash the impugned order and for a direction to the second respondent to deduct the monthly demand of the petitioner Society from the monthly salary and terminal benefits namely, gratuity and provident fund of the loanees/employees concerned.

4.The learned Single Judge, by order, dated 26.09.2019, had dismissed the said Writ Petition on the following lines:

3.It is affirmed that in accordance with the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, amounts cannot be attached towards the loan due to the financing corporations. I do not find any discrepancy in the impugned order passed. It is always open to the petitioner to enter into an agreement in accordance with law to recover money from the terminal benefits. The petitioner shall anticipate certain contingencies and shall take steps to recover it from the other sources and not from the Provident Fund and Gratuity. Hence, the prayer of the writ petitioner cannot be sustained. It is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the administration to ascertain the ways and means to recover money from the employees from other recoverable heads.”

5.Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petitioner Society has preferred the present Writ Appeal.

6.The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that as the appellant Society is a self contained code under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, will not applicable to the above Society and as per Section 48 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, and as per Rule 69 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988, the pay disbursing authority shall deduct the gratuity amount. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge had failed to consider the fact that as employees of the respondent having submitted Form-28 as per the Rule 69(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, then the Society had agreed to deduct the instalments from the salary or wages of the employees of the respondent.

7.The next contention, which was denied by the learned Single Judge, is that after the employee's termination or superannuation, the respondents shall recover the balance loan amount from the gratuity amount, which has been paid by the respondent herein. The learned Counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to consider the same by invoking Rule 69(2) of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988, and that under Form-29, the respondents are at liberty to deduct the loan amount obtained by the loanee/employee of the respondents. Hence, he seeks to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and to allow the Writ Appeal.

8.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is a Special Act and unless and until, there is a special proviso under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, to deduct the loan amount from the loan obtained from the loanee/employee, the claim of the appellant cannot be accepted. As per Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the only exemption granted, which is as f