Judgment :- 1. The short question for examination is this case is as to whether the appellant could seek attachment before Award, of the subsistence allowance amount which the appellant was liable to pay to the first respondent and which amount has been deposited before the appropriate authority under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. Aa attachment before award could be made by invoking the provisions of S.78 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, which lays dawn that: "If the Registrar is satisfied on an application, report, inquiry or otherwise, that any person with intent to delay or obstruct the enforcement of any order, decision or award that may be made against him under the provisions of this Act: (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property; or (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the jurisdiction of the Registrar, the Arbitrator or the liquidator, as the case may be, he may, unless adequate security is furnished, by order in writing, direct the attachment of the said property, and such attachment shall have the same effect as if made by a competent civil court." It is therefore clear from this provision that for obtaining as order for attachment before award, the appellant has to satisfy the Registrar or the Arbitrator on the following matters: (i) that the person is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property; or (ii) that the person is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the jurisdiction of the Registrar or Arbitrator, as the case may be; and (iii) that such disposal or removal is being made with intent to delay or obstruct the enforcement of any order, decision or award that may be made against him under the Act. What we are concerned in this case is only the attachment of the cash amount namely, the subsistence allowance amount credited by the appellant for being paid over to the first respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. Hence it is conceded that cl. (a) of S.78 of the Co-operative Societies Act is not applicable. Hence it is conceded that cl. (a) of S.78 of the Co-operative Societies Act is not applicable. So far as clause (b) of S.78 is concerned, the appellant has to satisfy that the 1st respondent is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator before whom the dispute between the appellant and the first respondent is pending adjudication. We shall assume for the purpose of this case without further examination that the property contemplated by cl. (b) of S.78 of the Co-operative Societies Act includes cash amount. What is of the crux of the matter is that cl. (b) of S.78 provides that the person concerned must be about to remove the whole or any part of the property from the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. Before proving this condition, the appellant has to plead in his application for attachment before award the necessary facts justifying an order being made in its favour. The relevant averments in this behalf are contained in Para.4 of the affidavit, which was placed for our perusal by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of the arguments: "The defendant with intent to delay and obstruct the enforcement of any order, decision or award that may be made against him, is about to dispose of his share in the immovable properties scheduled hereto and also is about to draw the amounts scheduled hereto and leave from the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court." (underlining ours) The schedule deals with the amount of subsistence allowance credited by the appellant under the provisions of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. It is clear from the averments that the appellant has only stated that the first respondent is about to draw the amounts, obviously from the authorities under the said Act. The other averment is that the first respondent is about to leave the jurisdiction of the court, which means from the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. If the person himself goes outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator that is not enough for the purpose of invoking cl. (b) of S.78 of the Co-operative Societies Act. What is necessary to be alleged and proved is that the person is about to remove the whole or any part of the property from the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. If the person himself goes outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator that is not enough for the purpose of invoking cl. (b) of S.78 of the Co-operative Societies Act. What is necessary to be alleged and proved is that the person is about to remove the whole or any part of the property from the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. There is no averment by the appellant in his affidavit before the Arbitrator that the 1st respondent is about to remove the whole or any part of the cash amount credited by way of subsistence allowance from the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. The only averment is that the 1st respondent himself is about to go outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. That is not enough for satisfying the requirement of clause (b) of S.78 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Cl. (b) of S.78 can be invoked only if a case is made out that the first respondent is about to remove the whole or any part of the property from the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. The question as to whether the said person himself goes outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is not relevant for the purpose of invoking cl.(b) of S.78. We find from the affidavit filed by the appellant before the Arbitrator that there is absolutely no averment that the 1st respondent is about to remove the whole or any part of the subsistence allowance credited in his favour outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. It is also clear from S.78 of the Co-operative Societies Act that if the person were to utilise or consume the property within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, the said provision cannot be invoked as it contemplates removal of the whole or any part of the property outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. It does not deal with the user or consumption within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. Subsistence allowance is obviously meant for consumption by the person who receives it as the very nomenclature signifies, namely, 'subsistence', meaning thereby amount necessary for the subsistence of the person. The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning for the word 'subsistence' as "allowance or advance or pay granted for maintenance". Hence in the ordinary circumstances when the person receives amount for bis subsistence, he is expected to utilise the amount for that purpose and the question of invoking S.78 may not arise. The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning for the word 'subsistence' as "allowance or advance or pay granted for maintenance". Hence in the ordinary circumstances when the person receives amount for bis subsistence, he is expected to utilise the amount for that purpose and the question of invoking S.78 may not arise. As no case of removal of the whole or any part of the property, from the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is made out, it is not possible to interfere with the judgment of the learned single judge in dismissing the original petition of the appellant, the necessary ingredients for invoking S.78 of the Co-operative Societies Act lacking in this case. 2. Though some arguments were advanced before us having regard to the provision in S.3 (2) of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 that so far as the appellant-employer is concerned, be cannot in any manner attach the subsistence allowance payable to the employee, we consider it unnecessary to examine this contention in this case as the appellant's appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons already stated. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Let a photostat copy of this judgment be furnished to the counsel for the appellant and the 1st respondent on usual terms.