THE WORKMEN OF SALEM CO-OPERATIVE MOTOR SOCIETY FOR EX-SERVICEMEN LTD. Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY LABOUR SECRETARY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Labour Department, Madras -9 to reconsider the question of making a reference regarding the dispute between the Management of Salem Co -operative Motor Transport Society for Ex. Servicemen Ltd., Salem and its Workmen the following two issues -(1) Non -employment of Thiru S. A. Deenadayalu; (2) Demotion of drivers R. Subramanian, K.V. Krishnaswamy, P. Chinna Gounder and A. Elumalai to the posts of cleaners.

(2.) THE South Arcot Co -operative Motor Transport Society Limited v. Syed Batcha and Ors. (supra) was also a case of a society formed by ex -servicemen.

(3.) ANANTHANARAYANAN , J., as he then was, and Venkatadri, J., expressed the view that since the employees concerned were members of the society, the relationship between the parties could not be considered to be that of master and servant. They considered, therefore, that they were not workmen and so there could be no industrial dispute. Since we do not share this view, we would have referred the matter to a fuller Bench. There is, however, one consideration which makes it unnecessary to have resort to that source. In that case, some of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co -operative Societies Act, which have an important bearing upon the question, were not noticed. It is possible, therefore, to consider the judgment in that case as per in curium. Section 15(1)(c) is to the effect that no persons shall be eligible for admission as a member of a society if he is paid employee of the society. On becoming an employes of the society, a member shall cease to be as such under Section 18(2)(c). But this provision will not apply, however, as seen from Section 18(3), to a person seeking admission to, or to a member as its principal object the provision of employment to a society, which has as its members. That means that notwithstanding the fact that a person is a member of a society, when employed in the society, the relationship of master and servant will come into existence in such a society. This provision was not noticed by the two learned Judges. Apparently, their attention was not directed to it. Quite apart from Section 18(3)(3), a registered society is a body corporate. That is what Section 31 of the Act says. As such, it has a separate personality, with a perpetual succession and a common seal as well as the powers to hold property, to enter into contracts, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and do all things necessary for the purposes for which it was constituted. It follows, therefore, that a member of a society can well be its employee. It cannot be said that in such a case, the question of an employer being also an employee arises. Catherine Lee v. Lee's Air Farming Ltd., (1961) A.C. 121, is directly in point. The Judical Committee held that in such a case the employee can well be regarded as a workman of the society. The view we have taken receives support from Kerala State Handloom Weavers' Co -operative Society v. The State of Kerala, 1964 L.L.J. 559, Kailasan, J., in The Kasturbanagur Co -operative House Construction Society Ltd. Madras -20, by its Secretary, v. K. Sonndararajan and Anr., (1967) M.L.J. 348, took much the same view, though the decision in that case was rendered in the context of the particular reliefs asked for.