Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the management of the Cooperative Bank. In this writ petition, they have come forward to challenge an Award passed by the second respondent Labour Court made in I.D.No.359 of 2000, dated 10.01.2006. By the impugned Award, the labour court directed payment of wages to the first respondent from the date on which he was terminated, i.e., on 16.11.1998 till the date of his superannuation, i.e., on 30.11.2003 with all other other attendant benefits together with suit cost of Rs.250/-. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 17.08.2007. Pending the writ petition, this court had granted an interim stay. Subsequently, the interim stay granted was made absolute with a condition that the management should deposit 50% of the backwages to the credit of the industrial dispute. The first respondent was allowed to withdraw 25% out of 50% of backwages deposited. The matter was subsequently sent for resolution of dispute by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. As no conciliation was possible, the matter came back to this court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner cooperative bank that the first respondent was appointed as a Peon in the bank on 01.01.1964. On 19.07.1993, he became the Secretary of the society till the date of his termination. During the course of his employment, he had committed several irregularities in the payment of grant of loan to the members of the bank. A charge memo, dated 24.7.1999 was given to him. In the said memo, there were as many as six charges. The first respondent gave his explanation on 09.08.1999 denying the charges. A criminal case was also registered by the CCIW police based upon an enquiry held under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. Since the original records were seized by the police, the records were not made available during the enquiry. But in view of the gravity of the charges and in view of the fact that a criminal case was registered, he was terminated from service on 03.12.1999. 4. The first respondent had raised a dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute finally reached the labour court, Salem and it was taken on file as I.D.No.359 of 2000. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent examined himself as W.W.1. 4. The first respondent had raised a dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute finally reached the labour court, Salem and it was taken on file as I.D.No.359 of 2000. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent examined himself as W.W.1. On the side of the management, one P. Jayaraman was examined as M.W.1 and he also filed 20 documents which were marked as Exs.M.1 to M.20. The labour court had rejected the preliminary objection, i.e., that the first respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and hence, the industrial dispute was not maintainable. The labour court held that since he was functioning under the control of the Special Officer and merely because, he was asked to supervise the work of others, by itself will not go out of purview of the Industrial Disputes Act. They have not furnished any proof to show that the workman was entitled to raise a dispute for arbitration for recovery of loan amounts. But, the labour court had failed to appreciate Ex.M.16, dated 3.6.1996 which was the proceedings of the Special Officer regarding allotment of work for various workers. Ex.M.17 was the resolution passed by the petitioner bank. Ex.M.18 was the proceedings relating to allotment of work for staff of the bank. Ex.M.19 was the resolution of the bank and Ex.M.20 was also the resolution of the petitioner bank. These documents were spoken to by M.W.1, who had clearly stated that the first respondent was looking after the administration and was doing supervisory role over the staff. He was getting salary of Rs.11,326/-. He had power to manage the society. He had also power to sign cheques as well as to grant leave as per the resolution of the management and the proceedings of the Special Officer. 5. The Labour Court however went into question that he cannot appoint staff to the society. He cannot evaluate the work of the staff and he cannot decide the duties and responsibilities of the staff. He cannot provide promotion to the staff. All powers are only available to the elected President of the cooperative bank or in the case of his non availability, to the Special Officer. He has no power of taking disciplinary action. He was only shown as an employee of the bank in the payment register. He cannot provide promotion to the staff. All powers are only available to the elected President of the cooperative bank or in the case of his non availability, to the Special Officer. He has no power of taking disciplinary action. He was only shown as an employee of the bank in the payment register. He can only spend upto Re.1/- for expenditure. There was no requirement of either the President or the Special Officer to act as per the advice of the Secretary. After overruling the objections, the labour court had rejected that there was any ground for dismissing the workman. 6. Mr.C.K. Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner produced a copy of bylaws to show that the Secretary of the society has extensive powers. He has been treated as a Chief Executive Officer of the society under Chapter IV of the bylaws. Therefore, he contended that the Secretary of the bank was not the workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The labour court had committed a grave mistake in overruling the objections of the management. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it was sought to justify the Award of the labour court. 8. It was contended by Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar that other employees who were also found guilty in the enquiry made under Section 81, i.e., Sukumar, Salesman in I.D.No.671 of 2000, V.M. Sukumaran, Cashier in I.D.No.459 of 2000 and Sakthivel, Salesman in I.D.No.501 of 2000, have also succeeded before the labour court. But, however finally when the matter reached this court, this Court in W.P.Nos.23584 of 2007 and 32584 of 2007 allowed the cases in favour of the management and that the Awards passed by the labour court were set aside. 9. The learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this court in The Management, T.P.Spl.67, Goundanpalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd., by its President Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, The Authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, Salem and another reported in 2003 Writ L.R. 371 for contending that the Secretary of the Cooperative society held to be not a workman as he is an officer within Section 2(19) of the TamilNadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. Though the said judgment arose under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, the definition of the term ‘employee’ is parimateria of the definition of the term ‘workman’. 10. Though the said judgment arose under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, the definition of the term ‘employee’ is parimateria of the definition of the term ‘workman’. 10. He further referred to a judgment of this court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.23584 of 2007, dated 08.06.2010, wherein in respect of the same society, the other three employees, i.e., M/s. M. Sugumar, V.M. Sugumaran and T. Sakthivel, the award were set aside on the ground that they are not entitled for any relief. 11. He further referred to a judgment of the division bench of this court in The George Town Cooperative Bank Limited, rep by its Secretary Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act), Teynampet, Chennai and others reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 199 to contend that even if a person is held to be not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, they have remedy by way of an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. 12. Similar view was also taken by this court in P.Nagappan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Minimum Wages).Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, Teynampet, Chennai and another reported in 2011 (1) LLN 704 (Mad.). 13. Under these circumstances, the findings rendered by the Labour Court that the first respondent was a ‘workman’ cannot be countenanced by this court. The Labour Court had failed to note that if a person is employed mainly on supervisory capacity and drawing salary beyond Rs.1600/- (at the relevant time), he cannot be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The labour court had applied the test whether the person is holding the post in the capacity of management. But it did not consider the exclusive definition of ‘workman’ being not a person having supervisory work and drawing above Rs.1600/-. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition will stand allowed. The impugned Award stands set aside. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.