IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 07.12.2009
Coram
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
W.P.Nos.12081 to 12083 of 2009
& M.P.Nos.1 of 2009
1 B.GURUSAMY [ PETITIONER
in W.P.No.12081/2009 ]
1 R.SEENIRAJ [ PETITIONER
in W.P.No.12082/2009 ]
1 R.GOPAL [ PETITIONER
in W.P.No.12083/2009 ]
Vs
1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPT.
FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI.
2 THE SPECIAL OFFICER
COIMBATORE (AAVIN)
DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COIMBATORE-18.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF
MILK PRODUCTION AND DAIRY DEVELOPMENT
MADAVARAM, CHENNAI-51.
4 THE COIMBATORE DISTRICT
COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. (AAVIN)
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
PACHAPALAYAM KALAMPALAYAM POST
COIMBATORE- 10. [ RESPONDENTS in all W.Ps. ]
PETITIONS filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records culminating in the order dt.25.6.2009 bearing Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.5855/Administration/2009 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same and direct the 4th respondent to employ the petitioners with all benefits.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Silambannan, Sr.Counsel for
Mr.G.B.Sharavana Bhavan
For Respondents :Mr.R.Neelakandan, G.A for R1 to R3
Mr.N.Manoharan for R4
COMMON ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. The three petitioners were employees of the 4th respondent District Cooperative Milk Producers Union. The petitioner in the first petition is a Senior Factory Assistant. The petitioner in the second petition is an Executive (Dairy). The petitioner in the third petition is a Junior Executive Milk Recorder. All the three Writ Petitions were filed against the order of the General Manager of the 4th respondent District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Limited, suspending the petitioners from service. In their orders of suspension, it was stated that the petitioners have acted contrary to the Conduct Rules and the enquiry against the petitioners are pending contemplation and in public interest,they were suspended from service with effect from 25.6.2009.
3. The petitioners have raised so many grounds in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petitions including that the order is non-est in the eye of law and the suspension has been made mala fide.
4. Notice was issued to the respondents. After Notice from this Court, the 4th respondent had filed a common counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the maintainability of the Writ Petitions was raised as a specific contention.
5. Since the Writ Petitions emanate from the employees of a Cooperative Society and the relief sought for is only against is the 4th respondent Cooperative Society, in the light of the larger Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (4) CTC 689 (K.Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Namakkal Circle, Namakkal-636 001 and another), the Writ Petitions are not maintainable and they are liable to be rejected on this sole ground.
6. Mr.S.Silambannan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in the Society, for issuing a suspension order, there is no Rule providing for suspension. In any event, it is an extreme case where for the irregularities committed by the Society were exposed by the petitioners and hence they were subjected to suspension. Therefore, the court can go into the issue. Lastly, he also submitted that there is no clear cut provision regarding payment of subsistence allowance. All these arguments cannot find acceptance by this Court.
7. Subsequent to the Marappan’s case (cited supra), the very same issue came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in T.K.Ananda Sayanan vs. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vellore Region, Vellore reported in (2007) 5 MLJ 637. This Court once again rejected another order passed by this Court holding that in case of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition is maintainable as non-payment of subsistence allowance amounts to deprivation of personal liberty as was held by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale reported in 1983 II LLJ 256. Rejecting such an approach, in paragraph 18, the Full Bench had observed as follows:
“18. Therefore, every order affecting the service of a workman would not automatically amount to an infringement of his right under Article 21 enabling him to move the writ court. We cannot ignore the settled position that applications to secure performance of obligations owed by a Government or a society towards its employees or to resolve any private dispute cannot be decided on the basis of the Article 21. The appellant herein may perhaps have a good case on other grounds. But the order of suspension suspending him from the post of Secretary does not amount to infringement of Article 21 and while the decision in the judgment of the Division Bench in the Special Officer, The Nazarath Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. C.Deva Anbu case (supra) may be right on the facts of that case the observations made regarding th application of Article 21 need to be and are clarified as above. The mere fact that he was kept under suspension beyond one year without the approval of the Registrar cannot be said to violate Article 21. It must be seen whether the invocation of Article 21 is justified in the particular case and whether the order challenged by a workman of a Cooperative Society is of such a nature that it would truly take away his right under Article 21 of the Constitution and that it is taken away otherwise than by due process of law.” (Emphasis added)
Therefore, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable.
8. In any event, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner raised the question of lack of provision for either ordering suspension or grant of subsistence allowance. It is needless to mention that even if the employers do not have any specific power of suspension, they still have the power to stop a worker in entering his work place. Such a power is held to be inherent in an employer as held by the Supreme Court in V.P.Gidroniya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1970 (1) SCC 362. In case of there being no provision to suspend an employee, at the maximum the employee is entitled to get full wages during the period of denial of work to him.
9. To obviate the difficulties, the Parliament has amended the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders), Act 1946 by Central Act by Act 18 of 1982 with effect from 17.5.1982. It has been statutorily incorporated that if a workman is suspended by an employer pending investigation or enquiry into complaints or charges of misconduct, the employer shall pay the workman the subsistence allowance as per the rates indicated in the said provision. Hence, the last contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners also cannot be countenanced by this Court.
10. In the light of the above, all the three Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Dismissal of these Writ Petitions will not disentitle the petitioners from availing such remedies as are available under any law including filing a Revision Petition before the Registrar against the orders of suspension. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.
07.12.2009
Index:yes/no
Internet:Yes/no
ajr
To
1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND
FISHERIES DEPT.,
FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI.
2 THE SPECIAL OFFICER,
COIMBATORE (AAVIN)
DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COIMBATORE-18.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF
MILK PRODUCTION AND DAIRY DEVELOPMENT
MADAVARAM,
CHENNAI-51.
K.CHANDRU,J
ajr
W.P.Nos.12081 to 12083 of 2009
07.12.2009