Judgment :- The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order of the first respondent, who is the authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 [for short, PSA Act] made in P.S.A. No.29 of 1997 and 31 of 1999 computing the payment of subsistence allowance in terms of the said Act amounting to a sum of Rs.47,804/- for the period from 16. 1996 to 110. 1997. 2. I have heard the arguments of Mr.A.P.Pasupathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned Government Advocate representing the respondents and have perused the records. 3. The contention of the writ petitioner is that the second respondent was the secretary of the society and he was employed in supervisory capacity. Therefore, the provisions of the Act will not apply. However, the first respondent came to the conclusion that the duties for the employees are allotted only on the basis of the resolution passed by the Society and since the allotment of duties issued by the Board of Directors were not filed, the second respondent cannot be held to be a person excluded from the provisions of the PSA Act. 4. However, a learned Judge of this Court in 2002 (4) CTC 339 [The Management, T.P.Spl. 67 Goundanpalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Labour], has held that the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Society Act is a special law and, therefore, a person designated as a Secretary, who is in overall control of the Society, is not entitled to claim subsistence allowance as per the Act. 5. Even if it is held that the Act does not apply to the secretary of a society, that will absolve the society from paying the due allowance for the suspension. The writ petitioner has not produced before this Court the relevant bye-laws of the society, which was in existence at that time. Even before the first respondent, the said bye-laws were not filed. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed before the authority, it was stated as follows: "... Only then he was placed under suspension pending enquiry through the order dt. 15. 97. Accordingly he was allowed subsistence allowance from 01.05.97 onwards until the completion of domestic enquiry, as and when it was due and as claimed by the petitioner. There was no denial of payment of subsistence allowance at any moment of time." 6. Only then he was placed under suspension pending enquiry through the order dt. 15. 97. Accordingly he was allowed subsistence allowance from 01.05.97 onwards until the completion of domestic enquiry, as and when it was due and as claimed by the petitioner. There was no denial of payment of subsistence allowance at any moment of time." 6. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writ petitioner Society has not mentioned about the nature of suspension and the rate of subsistence allowance paid to the second respondent, who was placed under suspension. 7. In the light of the clear pronouncements of this Court, a secretary of a society is in overall control of the Society and not a workman covered by the PSA Act. The order passed by the first respondent is clearly illegal and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. It does not preclude the obligation on the part of the petitioner society from paying subsistence allowance to the second respondent. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition shall stand allowed and the order of the first respondent will stand quashed. However, the writ petitioner is directed to compute the subsistence allowance in terms of the bye-laws which were in existence at the relevant period for the period from 16. 1996 to 110. 1997 and pay the same to the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. But the writ petitioner Society can give credit to the amount already paid to the second respondent while making the payment. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No.37837 of 2001 will stand closed.