K CHAKARABANI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT CUDDALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions, the writ petitioner is a Cashier working under the second respondent Co -operative Society. He was suspended from service pending enquiry by an order dated 29.8.1985 and finally dismissed on 18.9.1997. He approached the first respondent Labour Court with petitions claiming certain amounts for three different periods, which, according to him, are payable on account of his prolonged suspension. His petitions were taken on file in C.P.Nos.117 of 1995, 115 of 1996 and 43 of 1997 and notice was ordered to the second respondent Society. The first respondent Labour Court, after hearing the parties, passed a common order dated 23.02.1999, which is under challenge before this Court.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Mr.N.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner workman and Ms.P.Selvi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Society and have perused the records.

(3.) THE provisions of the said Act are undoubtedly applicable to the Co-opearative Society and this Court as early as in 1989 (1) L.L.N. 689 [C.Selvaraj and others vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem and another] has held that provisions of this Act will apply to co-operative Societies. In fact, in that decision, this Court went to the extent of stating that the term employee should be understood in terms of the work actually performed by the workmen and mere nomenclature cannot be a ground to deny him the subsistence allowance.