Judgment :- 1. The appeal is by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam, and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Trivandrum against the decision of a learned judge in O.P. No. 1250 of 1978. The question raised is short and interesting, namely, whether the payment of subsistence allowance to the employees of a Co-operative Society governed by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 is regulated by the provisions of R.198(o) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules or by the statutory provisions of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 (Act 27 of 1973). The learned judge in his judgment under appeal held that the former Act is a special Act, and the employees of the Co-operative Societies must have the subsistence allowance paid to them under the provisions of R.198 (o) which should be regarded as a special Rule on the subject, and that the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act should be regarded as a general Act. 2. The question arises in connection with certain disciplinary proceedings taken by the Society, the 1st respondent herein, against the second respondent, who was kept under suspension. Exts. P9 and P12 are the orders passed with respect to payment of subsistence allowance, ordered under the provisions of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act. These were sought to be quashed by the Co-operative Society, the petitioner in the writ petition on the ground that subsistence allowance under R.198 (o) of the Co-operative Societies Rules would work out at more favourable rates to the 1st respondent society and on less beneficial terms to the 2nd respondent. The argument raised on behalf of the Co-operative Society was sought to be supported on the ground that the Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules are special enactments which should override the general enactment, namely, the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act. 3. We have given the matter our careful attention. We find it difficult to agree with the learned judge. The Co-operative Societies Act no doubt deals specifically with Co-operative Societies, their control, their management, their administration and regulation of their affairs. In that enactment, we get S.80 (3) which provides as follows: '80. Officers, etc. 3. We have given the matter our careful attention. We find it difficult to agree with the learned judge. The Co-operative Societies Act no doubt deals specifically with Co-operative Societies, their control, their management, their administration and regulation of their affairs. In that enactment, we get S.80 (3) which provides as follows: '80. Officers, etc. of Co-operative Societies: (3) The Government shall, in consultation with the State Co-operative Union, make rules regulating the qualification, remuneration, allowances and other, conditions of service of the officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in subsection (1).' It is by virtue of this power that R.198 (o) of the Co-operative Societies Rules was framed. That rule lays down: '198. Disciplinary Action. x x x x (o) An authority competent to appoint an employee may suspend him pending enquiry into serious charges against such employee. No employee shall however be kept under suspension for a period exceeding six months at a time. In no case an employee shall be kept under suspension for a continuous period exceeding one year without the prior approval of the Registrar. An employee under suspension shall be entitled for subsistence allowance at the rates admissible to State Government employees as prescribed under the Kerala Service Rules.' It is to be noticed that the Rules are to be framed by the Government in consultation with the State Co-operative Union and they are to regulate the qualification, remuneration, allowance and other conditions of service of officers and servants of the different classes of Co-operative Societies. We turn now to Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. The title of the Act recites that it was an Act to provide for the payment of subsistence allowance to the employees in certain establishments during the period of suspension. The preamble recites that the Act was passed as it was expedient to provide for payment of subsistence allowance to the employees in certain establishments. The definition of an 'establishment' is given in S.2 (c) of the Act. It is unnecessary to refer to the same. The statement of objects and reasons would make it clear that the Act was passed to regulate specifically the subject of payment of subsistence allowance to the different classes of employees in Industrial/ Commercial establishments. That the Act was meant to have a comprehensive operation and to cover all existing pattern of establishments appears clear enough. The statement of objects and reasons would make it clear that the Act was passed to regulate specifically the subject of payment of subsistence allowance to the different classes of employees in Industrial/ Commercial establishments. That the Act was meant to have a comprehensive operation and to cover all existing pattern of establishments appears clear enough. This is emphasised by S.5 of the Act, which may be extracted: '5. Saving of certain rights and privileges: Nothing in this Act shall affect any right or privilege to which any employee is entitled on the date of commencement of this Act under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, custom or usage, which is more favourable to him than any right or privilege conferred upon him by this Act.' The effect of S.5 of the Act is to save any law for the time being in force under which a right or privilege more favourable to the employee is available. By implication, any law under which the right or privilege available is less favourable, cannot be, and is not to be, saved. In the present case, there can be little doubt, and there was indeed no controversy, that the rate of subsistence allowance payable under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act is more favourable than under R.198 (o) of the Co-operetive Societies Rules. The subsistence allowance payable under S.3 (1) of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, in the first instance, is an amount of 50% of the wages which the employee was drawing immediately before expulsion. Under certain contingencies and circumstances mentioned in the Section, the amount can diminish to a lesser amount. 4. Having regard to the scheme, the purpose and the object of the two enactments, it appears to us that the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, must be regarded as a special Act which will override the provisions of the general Act, which, in this case is the Co-operative Societies Act. The principle of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in UPSE. Board v. Hari Shanker (AIR. 1979 SC. 65 paras 5 to 9) supports our conclusion. We may also mention that Chapter XV of the Co-operative Societies Rules (in which occurs R.198 (o)), was inserted by notification dated 27-9-1973, and the amendments were to take effect from 1-1-1974. The principle of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in UPSE. Board v. Hari Shanker (AIR. 1979 SC. 65 paras 5 to 9) supports our conclusion. We may also mention that Chapter XV of the Co-operative Societies Rules (in which occurs R.198 (o)), was inserted by notification dated 27-9-1973, and the amendments were to take effect from 1-1-1974. The Payment of Subsistence Allowances Act was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 14-9-1973. From that point of view again, the indication is that the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act came into force earlier than R.198 (o). 5. We are of the view that the provisions of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act is a special law, which must prevail over the provisions contained in the general law, the Co-operative Societies Act. We cannot, therefore, agree with the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned judge. We allow this appeal, and set aside the judgment of the learned Judge. The result is that O. P. No. 1250 of 1978 will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.