ORDER: Petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.20 of 1994 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, preferred the revision aggrieved against the order passed in Crl.M.P. SR.No.6120 of 1996 dated 6.9.1996. 2. The case in brief is as follows: The petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.20 of 1994 on the basis of a charge sheet filed by the respondent for the alleged offences under Sec.120-B read with Secs.167, 409, 420, 465, 467, 471, 218, 161 of I.P.C., and Sec.5(2) read with 5(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The petitioner was employed as an Additional Accountant in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as The Board). There are also other employees of the Board, who are facing trial along with the petitioner. The respondent has proceeded against the petitioner on the basis that he is a public servant and therefore committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The Managing Director of the Board passed a sanction order according sanction to prosecute him under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other allied offences. This Court had occasion to deal with the status of the Board in W.A. Nos.917 and 918 of 1990. The question that arose was whether the Board was an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Sec.2(e)(1) of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It was held that the Board was an industrial establishment. The Board also went on appeal to the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.7571 of 1992 and the same was dismissed. Therefore, the relationship between the Board and the employee is that “master and servant” and the Industrial Disputes Act would apply to the employees of the Board. The petitioner was placed under suspension and he moved the Labour Court in I.D.No.214 of 1993 and an award was also passed in his favour. The sanction order passed against the petitioner is not valid in law inasmuch as he being workman, he is a not a public servant under the meaning of Sec.21 of Indian Penal Code. Once the petitioner is not a public servant, Prevention of Corruption Act will not apply and he cannot be proceeded with further. The petitioner raised these contentions and filed an application for discharge, but the same was dismissed by the trial Court and aggrieved against this, the present revision has been filed. 4. Once the petitioner is not a public servant, Prevention of Corruption Act will not apply and he cannot be proceeded with further. The petitioner raised these contentions and filed an application for discharge, but the same was dismissed by the trial Court and aggrieved against this, the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) opposed the application had contended that the petitioner is also a public servant. Between February, 1987 and November, 1987, the petitioner and 27 others of the Board indulged themselves in corruption and malpractices in the execution of works in Distribution System in Ooty Town in Hill Area Development Project Work. No work was executed by them but payment was made to 7 fictitious contractors. The bills for the above works were audited by the petitioner and there was a loss of Rs.102 lakhs caused by the Board. The petitioner is drawing his pay/ salary from the Board which is a Tamil Nadu Government Undertaking; he is a public servant within the meaning of Sec.21, I.P.C. Further, the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’) lays down that officers and servants of the Board to be public servants and Sec.70 of the Act (Act 4 of 1971) also supports the same. According to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, “workman” does not include any such person, who being employed in a supervisory capacity draw wages exceeding Rs.1,600 per month or either by the nature of duties attached to the officer or by reason of power vested in him. The basic pay of the petitioner is Rs.2,000 per month and hence, he will not come under the purview of “workman”. Since the petitioner is in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government within the meaning of Sec. 1 of Indian Penal Code and also in the service of the Board, the petitioner is a public servant. The sanction order accorded to prosecute the petitioner is valid and is binding. 5. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct? The sanction order accorded to prosecute the petitioner is valid and is binding. 5. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct? 7.Point: The petitioner is one of the accused facing trial in C.C.No.20 of 1994 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Madras for alleged offences under Sec.120-B read with 167, 409, 420, 465, 467, 471, 218, 161 of I.P.C. and Sec.5(2) read with 5(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was employed as Additional Accountant in the Board and he is not a public servant and, as such, he cannot be prosecuted for an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act and sanction order given by the Managing Director of the Board is also not proper and correct. Learned senior counsel further stated that the status of the Board was decided in Writ Appeals Nos.917 and 918 of 1990 on the file of this Court and it was held that the Board was in the Industrial Establishment. The relationship between the Board and the employee is one of the Master and Servant and apart from that, when the petitioner was placed under suspension, he had moved the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute and I.D.No.214 of 1993 was also allowed in his favour. Hence, it is contended that once the petitioner does not fal1 within the definition of a public servant, Prevention of Corruption Act will not apply and the cannot be proceeded with under the said Act, and, as such, the order of sanction is also illegal and void and hence, the petitioner has to be discharged from the case. 8. No doubt, the petitioner is an employee working as Additional Accountant in the Board. Apart from the I.P.C. offences, the petitioner is also charged for the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Learned Government Advocate relied upon Sec.70 of the Act (Act 4 of 1971), which reads as follows: “All officers and servants of the Board, and any person entrusted with the execution of any function under this Act, shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Sec.21 of the Indian Penal Code.” 9. Learned Government Advocate relied upon Sec.70 of the Act (Act 4 of 1971), which reads as follows: “All officers and servants of the Board, and any person entrusted with the execution of any function under this Act, shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Sec.21 of the Indian Penal Code.” 9. It is, therefore, clear from the language employed under Sec.70 that all officers and servants of the Board entrusted with the execution of any function under this Act shall be deemed to be public servant. In view of Sec.70, there cannot be any difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is a public servant under Sec.21 of I.P.C. Apart from that, it is admitted that the petitioner is receiving salary of more than Rs.2,000 per month and, as such, he will not come under the definition of a “workman” defined under Sec.2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, learned senior counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute relating to the suspension and obtained the award in his favour. It is stated by the learned Government Advocate that the matter is now pending in the writ proceedings. Prima facie, it is clear from Sec.70 of the Act referred to above and also the salary received by the petitioner, it is crystal clear that he shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Sec.21 of the I.P.C. and, as such, he can be very well prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, the contention whether the order of sanction granted by the competent authority is proper or not can be agitated by the petitioner during the course of trial. Further more, it is seen from the records that the petitioner had already moved the trial Court for a similar relief and it was dismissed on 1.8.1996 and thereafter, filed an application and it was dismissed on 6.9.1996. Under the circumstance, I am of the view that the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct and no interference is called for. 10. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete the same as early as possible. Consequently, CrI.M.P.No.3456 of 1996 is also dismissed.