(1.) Seeking for a review, Mr. D. Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, learned counsel for the Vadayariruppu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society submitted that at the time when the writ appeal W.A.(MD) No. 460 of 2015 was taken up for hearing, regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition filed by the 1st respondent seeking for a mandamus, directing the appellant/review petitioner and the second respondent to pay the subsistence allowance from the date of suspension was raised, though K. Marappan v/s. The Deputy Registrar o f Cooperative Societies, Namakkal reported in : 2006(4) C.T.C. 689 was referred, this Court did not countenance the same by relying on M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corp oration Ltd., and another v/s. V. Jahan Khan reported in : 2008(1) SCC (L & S) 9 on the question of alternative remedy.
(2.) Referring to T.K. Ananda Sayanan, T.K. v/s. The Joint Registrar, Co -op. Societies, Vellore (FB) reported in : 2007(5) CTC 1, learned counsel for the appellant/review petitioner submitted that a Full Bench of this Court had a occasion to consider as to whether suspension or deprivation of wages for period or termination in relation to the employee of co -operative society can be challenged by way of a writ petition and that the Hon'ble Full Bench has answered the reference stating that the writ petition is not maintainable. Attention of this Court is also invited to paragraph 3 in Ananda Sayanan's case as to how the matter was referred to Full Bench. Paragraph No. 3 of the Ananda Sayanan's case is reproduced hereunder:
(3.) In our view non payment of subsistence allowance during the suspension period would affect the very livelihood of a person. Except the above, no other ground was alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant/review petitioner. Going through the material on record, we are of the view that the review is not made out. It is unfortunate that payment of subsistence to the 1st respondent/employee is denied, further litigation is persuaded in the form of a writ petition.