IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:30.03.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.3791 of 2004 The Tamil Nadu Industrial Cooperative Bank Ltd., rep.by Special Officer, Mr.S.Parameswaran, No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 8. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.D.Ramesh Babu 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chennai – 6. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in its proceedings in P.S.A.No.18 of 2003, dated 11.12.2003 and quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.K.Harishankar For Respondents :Mr.D.Nages Babu for R1 Mr.B.Vijay, GA for R2 ORDER The present writ petition is directed against the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, in its proceedings in P.S.A.No.18 of 2003, dated 11.12.2003. 2. The 1st respondent, D.Ramesh Babu, while working as a typist, was entrusted with the work of Cashier, in the petitioner's bank at Vellore Branch. Due to certain irregularities committed by the 1st respondent, he was placed under suspension and charges were framed against him for conducting departmental enquiry. The charges framed against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1st respondent are as follows:- (a) That he has cheated the bank by colluding with the Jewel appraiser to sanction jewel loan taking worthless/gilted/spurious jewels as securities for such loans and caused loss to the bank. (b) That he has failed to discharge his statutory duties and indulged in activities detrimental to the growth and development of the Bank. (c) That he has caused breach of trust by encouraging and issue of dubious loans against the norms prescribed in the manual/guidelines issued from time to time. (d) His conduct amounts to serious criminal nature and breach of trust unbecoming of a responsible bank officer. The charge memo was served on the 1st respondent, and he was directed to give his reply. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the 1st respondent, conducted an enquiry by keeping the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner bank also paid 50% of the basic salary and Dearness Allowance as subsistence allowance. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report. The Disciplinary Authority after issuing notice and receiving the explanation, passed an order of punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of five years on 16.05.2003. Subsequently, the suspension was also revoked by reinstating the 1st respondent in service of the petitioner bank. The 1st respondent challenged the order by initiating proceedings under the Tamilnadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 before the 2nd respondent claiming that he was entitled to the enhanced subsistence allowance at 75% of his basis salary. The petitioner's bank also filed their counter to the said proceedings and contended that the proceedings under the Tamilnadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 are not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner bank is a co-operative society functioning under the State Government and only the provisions of the rules and by-laws of the bank and the provisions of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act will govern its employees. But, the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, by overruling the objection raised by the petitioner bank, passed the impugned order, directing that the petitioner to pay enhanced subsistence allowance at 75% of the basic salary. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Division https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bench reported in 2007(5) CTC 392 (M.Kanagasabapathy Vs. The Special Officer and others), wherein the question of payment of subsistence allowance raised in the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent has been settled by this Court. In the above said judgment, it was held that the question of payment of subsistence allowance (Act 43 of 1981), being a special enactment, would prevail over the provisions of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, in the matter of payment of Subsistence Allowance to persons, who are under suspension of pending disciplinary proceedings. 4. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the above said judgment, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour directing the petitioner/Co- operative Bank to pay the enhanced subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of the basic pay is upheld and as a result, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No Costs. Sd/ Asst Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst Registrar rkm To 1.The Tamil Nadu Industrial Cooperative Bank Ltd., rep by its Special Officer, Mr.S.Parameswaran, No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 8. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chennai – 6. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ +1 CC to Mr.D.Nagesh Babu, Advocate Sr.No.21157 +1 CC to Mr. C.Ramesh, Advocate Sr.No.20955 W.P.No.3791/2004 (CO-RSJ) THS : 19.04.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/