ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Claim Petition No.09/01, dated 25.02.2010, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent filed a claim petition in O.P.No.9 of 2001 against the petitioner Society before the first respondent claiming a sum of Rs.2,07,117.54/- by stating that he was working as a Secretary of the petitioner Society since 01.11.85 and that he resigned on 12.08.2000 and that he was not paid the salary for a period from 01.08.2000 to 11.08.2000, the Provident Fund, gratuity, earn leave and bonus for the period from 1997-2000 and the second respondent claimed that his last drawn salary was Rs.7,937/-.

3. The petitioner Society filed an objection by stating that the second respondent has no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the first respondent as he was an officer under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. It is further averred that the second respondent did not hand over the charge on his registration and the proceedings under Section 81 of the said Act was initiated for the irregularities committed by him and pending enquiry, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute and filed a claim petition under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and the Labour Court, without considering the settled issue that the Secretary who has to be considered as Management and not as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and the petitioner is an Officer under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. However, the Labour Court passed the award in favour of the second respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner Society.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and this Court has already held that the Secretary of the Society cannot be defined as a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in The Management, T.P.Spl.67, Goundanpalayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., by its President Vs. The Assistant Commissiioner of Labour, Salem-7 and another reported in

2002(4) CTC 339, wherein this Court held as follows:

10. The second respondent, admittedly the Secretary of the petitioner Bank, squarely falls under the definition of "Officer" as defined under the definition Section 2(19) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and he is bound by the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and Rules and would not fall under any other Act, much less the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 as an "employee". The one and the same authority cannot be an "Officer" and an "employee", nor could he be taken both as an "Officer" for the purpose of Cooperative Societies Act and could be taken as an "employee" for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, and therefore, since the second respondent having been the Secretary of the petitioner Bank and falling under the definition Section 2(19) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 as an "Officer", he cannot be classified otherwise than this for any purpose much less for the purpose of Payment of Subsistence Allowance.

11. Moreover, whether the assignment of the petitioner would fall under the definition of Section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act having such powers as expressed by the learned single Judge of this Court in his judgment reported in 1989-1-L.L.N. 689 (supra) has been established which is wanting in this case, especially in view of the fact that the Secretary being an "Officer" of the particular cooperative Wing or Bank is the Chief Executive having all the powers not only appointing, determining the salary and having the power