(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.15029 of 2014 dated 07.09.2021 on the file of this Court.

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.17098 of 2017 dated 07.09.2021 on the file of this Court.)

Common Judgment:

M. Dhandapani, J.

1. Since the issue involved in these Writ Appeals arises out of the same set of proceedings and the parties are common, these Writ Appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Challenging the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.15029 of 2014 and 17098 of 2017, dated 07.09.2021, the appellant has preferred the present Writ Appeals.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Management would submit that the second respondent/writ petitioner, who was an employee of the appellant-Management, was dismissed from service on 24.02.2003. Thereafter, she filed a claim petition before the first respondent in P.S.A.No.6 of 2009, claiming subsistence allowance for the period from 22.09.2000 to 21.12.2006. The first respondent entertained the claim petition and allowed the same in her favour by order dated 28.03.2014.

4. Thereafter, the second respondent filed another claim petition in P.S.A. No.2 of 2014, claiming subsistence allowance for the period from 22.12.2006 to 21.05.2014. The first respondent entertained the said claim petition and allowed the same in her favour by order dated 15.06.2017. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant-Management filed W.P.(MD) Nos.15029 of 2014 and 17098 of 2017 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by a common order dated 07.09.2021, dismissed the said writ petitions. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeals have been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the issue arising for consideration in these Writ Appeals is no longer res integra and has already been settled by this Court in the Administrator, S. 777, Nangavalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society v. P.Thangavel, W.A.No.1853 of 2026, dated 10.07.2026, wherein it has been held that, in respect of employees of a Co-operative Society governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the special bye-laws framed thereunder, a claim for subsistence allowance has to be pursued in accordance with the statutory remedies available under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The Division Bench has further held that an application before the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 is not maintainable and that the employee has to approach the Management of the Co-operative Society and, if aggrieved by the decision taken therein, approach the revisional authority under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that this Court may grant liberty to the second respondent to file a revision petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies within the time prescribed by this Court. She would further submit that the period during which the matter was pending before the first respondent as well as before this Court may be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

8. The issue involved in these Writ Appeals is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the Administrator, S. 777, Nangavalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society v. P. Thangavel, W.A.No.1853 of 2026, dated 10.07.2026. In the said judgment, this Court has held that the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 is a special enactment governing the affairs of Co-operative Societies and that the remedies provided under the said Act have to be exhausted in respect of claims arising out of the service conditions of employees governed by the special bye-laws. It was further held that a claim for subsistence allowance cannot be directly made before the authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, and that the employee has to approach the Management and thereafter, if aggrieved, invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.

9. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in P.S.A.Nos.6 of 2009 and 2 of 2014 cannot be sustained. Consequently, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) Nos.15029 of 2014 and 17098 of 2017, dated 07.09.2021, are liable to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in P.S.A.Nos.6 of 2009 and 2 of 2014 are set aside. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) Nos.15029 of 2014 and 17098 of 2017, dated 07.09.2021, are also set aside. Consequently, the said Writ Petitions are allowed.

11. However, in the interest of justice, liberty is granted to the second respondent to approach the Management of the appellant-Cooperative Society by submitting an appropriate claim for subsistence allowance and, thereafter, if aggrieved by the decision of the Management, to avail the remedy under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, before the competent Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

12. The competent Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies shall consider the revision petition, if any filed by the second respondent, on its own merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such revision petition. While considering the same, the competent authority shall independently assess the claim on its own merits and shall not be influenced by the orders passed by the first respondent, the learned Single Judge or this Court in the present proceedings.

13. The period during which the second respondent was prosecuting the proceedings before the first respondent and thereafter before this Court shall be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, if any, in accordance with law.

14. Accordingly, these Writ Appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.