SECRETARY, PALANI CO-OPERATIVE SALES SOCIETY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Secretary of the Palani Co -operative Sales Society. Dindigul Road, Palani. The second respondent was appointed as one of its salesman. On charges of misconduct, to wit, making false entries in the books of account of the Society and distributing to card -holders rations far in excess of those permitted to them, the second respondent was placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. The order of suspension was dated 5 -12 -1967 and it was to take effect from 6 -12 -1967. The petitioner's case is that such suspension is possible under its bye -laws. It transpires that latar on the enquiry was completed and ultimately the second respondent was dismissed from service. We are not however concerned with the order of dismissal. The second respondent during the pendency of the enquiry filed a claim petition on the file of the first respondent under Section 33 -C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming a sum of Rs. 700 made up of a sum of Rs. 640 towards salary for the period commencing from 6 -12 -1967 to 26 -10 -1968 and a sum of Rs. 60 as and towards leave wages. The petitioner's contention was that the second respondent was not entitled to the full pay under bye -law 13 (h) which according to the petitioner would apply to the facts of the case, and therefore, the order of the Labour Court, Madurai, which directed the payment of the salary in full as claimed was vitiated by an error apparent. The contention of the second respondent however is that bye -law 13 (h) will not cover a situation like the one which has arisen in this case as that bye -law can only apply to a case where suspension is imposed as a matter of substantive punishment against a delinquent employee and would not relate to a case where the order of suspension is made during the pendency of a regular enquiry into the misconduct of an employee.

(2.) THE bye -law which is relied upon by both the petitioner as well as the second respondent appears to be one which is generally incorporated in the bye -laws of co -operative societies. Bye -law 13 (h) of the bye -laws of the petitioner -society deals with the punishments which an appropriate authority can inflict on any of its employees. The punishments include censure, withholding of increments, suspension or reduction in rank or dismissal. Bye -law 13 (h) which is reproduced here for ready reference deals with a case of suspension of an employee. It reads as follows -

(3.) THE above position appears to be rather clear. But two conflicting views of pur Court have been placed before me in the course of the arguments by the learned counsel. Mr. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to the decision of Alagiriswami J. in W. P. Nos. 2718 and 2719 of 1968 and 2120 of 1969 (Mad) the Madurai Mills Workers Co -operative Stores Ltd. v. Presiding Officer. Labour Court Madurai. In this case, the question directly arose as to whether bye -law 13 (h), which is being considered by me, would apply to a case where the authority was imposing a substantive punishment, or to a case where an order of suspension was made pending an enquiry into the delinquency of a servant of a co -operative society. The learned Judge expressed the view -