Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the award passed by the first respondent – Labour Court, Cuddalore in I.D.No.112 of 1998 dated 26.3.2007. 2. By the impugned award, the Labour Court held that the petitioner being a Secretary of the second respondent co-operative society, which is a primary agricultural cooperative bank at Parvathipuram, Vadalur Post is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the dispute raised by him under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable. 3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was given a suspension order of 25.7.1997. Subsequently after his explanation, a charge memo dated 25.11.1997 was given to him. The President of the Board of Directors took appropriate action including conducting domestic enquiry. The Domestic Enquiry Officer gave a report dated 15.2.1998 holding that the petitioner guilty of the misconduct. On the basis of the report, a second show cause notice dated 25.2.1998 was given. The petitioner gave explanation on 04.03.1998. Based on the explanation and based upon the records, he was dismissed from service by order dated 10.6.1998. The petitioner, thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer, Cuddalore under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. When notice was sent to the Management, they filed an objection statement stating that the petitioner, as against the dismissal filed a representation to the Board and the Board refused to accept the petitioners demand. Since the stand of the parties at variance, the Conciliation Officer gave a failure report dated 02.11.1998. 4. On the strength of the failure report, the petitioner filed a claim statement before the Labour Court. The Labour Court registered the dispute as I.D.No.112 of 1998 and issued notice to the second respondent. The second respondent filed a counter statement. Apart from justifying the dismissal, they also raised a preliminary issue that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the dispute was not maintainable. 5. The Labour Court, initially framed preliminary issue with reference to the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the management. By a preliminary award dated 20.8.2001, the Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not fair and proper. 5. The Labour Court, initially framed preliminary issue with reference to the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the management. By a preliminary award dated 20.8.2001, the Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not fair and proper. Therefore for further proceedings, the matter was directed to be posted on 26.9.2001. Subsequent to the preliminary award, on the side of the management, eight witnesses were examined as M.W.1 to M.W.8 and on their side 91 documents were filed and marked as M.1 to M.91. On the side of the petitioner, apart from examining himself as W.W.1, he also examined one V.G.Jayamani as W.W.2. On the side of the petitioner, 17 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W.1 to W.17. The Labour Court framed an issue, namely, whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief. But however, without going into the merits of the dispute, the Labour Court first decided the preliminary issue as to whether the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was mainly engaged in a supervisory capacity and in his cross examination, he had stated that under him, there were four clerks and he was supervising their work. The Labour Court also referred to a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Naganathand others V. Common Cadre Committee, Bidar and others reported in 2000 L.L.R 238 and found that the Secretary of a Cooperative Society is not workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is in that view of the matter, the Labour Court found that the dispute raised by the petitioner was not a valid dispute as he is not a workman, who is competent to raise a dispute. It is in that view of the matter, by award dated 26.3.2007, the dispute was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 6. The Writ Petition was admitted on 20.6.2007. Pending the Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for an order of interim stay. However, this Court held that such an application is not maintainable and the interim application was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 6. The Writ Petition was admitted on 20.6.2007. Pending the Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for an order of interim stay. However, this Court held that such an application is not maintainable and the interim application was dismissed. On notice from this Court, second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated nil (July, 2011) has been filed, once again reiterating that the petitioner was not a workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit dated 06.09.2011 seeking permission to produce the special bye-laws applicable to the conditions of service of employees. In that Bye-law, the petitioner chose to rely upon paragraph No.8 (viii) wherein it is stated that the Chief Executive of the Society is the only competent person to sanction casual leave for employees including Secretary and the President is the competent authority to sanction casual leave to the Chief Executive and privilege leave to all the employees, including the Secretary. Therefore, it was sought to be argued that he does not not have given power to sanction leave. It must be noted that a supervisory work is not only either sanctioning leave or taking disciplinary action. It involves multifarious roles under Section 2(19) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The term "Officer" includes not only the President and other office bearers, but also the Secretary of the Cooperative Society. 7. The question whether a secretary of a Cooperative Society is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and also Section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 came up for consideration in several judgments of this Court, where it was held that the definition of employee is similar to that of a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of The Management, T.P.Spl.67 Goundanpalayam, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited V. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour and another reported in 2003 Writ Law Reporter 371, wherein a similar claim was negatived by this Court. Under the said circumstances, there is no infirmity in the award passed by the first respondent Labour Court. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Under the said circumstances, there is no infirmity in the award passed by the first respondent Labour Court. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, the dismissal of the Writ Petition will not disentitle the petitioner from availing the statutory revisional remedy under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 to the revisional authority. If any such revision is filed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the competent Revisional Authority shall entertain the same without reference to limitation prescribed under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and deal with the same on merits. No costs.