Judgment : 1. The impugned Order dated 13.4.2010 passed in W.P.(MD) No.8412 of 2009 by the learned Single Judge is being challenged in present Appeal. 2. The First Respondent herein Petitioner has filed W.P.(MD) No.8412 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Order of Suspension made in Rc.No.M3/15502/09, dated 10.8.2009 on the file of the Second Respondent and quash the same and to implement the statutory Orders dated 26.6.2009 & 28.7.2009 passed by the Third Respondent forthwith. 3. After hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the entire materials availale on record, the learned Single Judge has passed an Order dated 13.4.2010 in ST.P.(MD) 8412 of 2009. 4. It is stated in the operate portion of the Order made in Writ Petition as follows: “The Writ Petition stands allowed insofar as it relates to the impugned Order of Suspension alone and the Order of Suspension stands set aside, leaving it open to the Petitioner to work out his remedy in respect of the prayer for a direction against the Second Respondent to implement the Advisory Notes of the Third Respondent dated 26.6.2009 & 23.7.2009 in the appropriates forum”. As against the same Appellant/the Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thanjavur Region, Thanjavur has filed the present Appeal before this Court. 5. It is stared in the Writ Petition that the Writ Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the record relating to the Suspension Order and quash the same as illegal consequentially to direct the Respondent to implement statutory Order dated 26.6.2009 & 28.7.2009 passed by Respondent forthwith. 6. The First Respondent herein/Petitioner in the Writ Petition has stared in Writ Petition that he is now working as Superintendent (P & M) at Kumbakonam Unit of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., unit of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Further, the Writ Petitioner is the State President of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Tholilar Sangam Trade Union registered under Trade Union Act, 1926. The Respondent by Order dated 15.102008 recognised the Petitioner as a ‘Protected Workmen’ in conformity with Section 33(4) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 65(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 and as such, his Service conditions cannot be altered or changed to his disadvantage without sanction from the Competent Authority. 7. The Petitioner, as the State President of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Tholilargal Sangam, preferred various Complaints against the Second Respondent in the Writ Petition, who is personally arrayed as the Fourth Respondent in the Writ Petition, for having alleged mala fide against the Petitioner. In view of the Order of the Third Respondent, the Petitioner has been allowed to join as Superintendent at Thanjavur on 25.11.2008 by setting aside the Order of Transfer dated 29.07.2008 passed by the First Respondent. 8. The Second Respondent has instigated one DPC Employee by name M. Kasinathan, against whom the petitioner has made subsequent Complaint, to pick up quarrel with the Petitioner. The Second Respondent set up an incident and has chosen to pass the impugned Order in proceedings dated 10.8.2009 placing the Petitioner under suspension alleging that an enquiry into grave charge against the Petitioner is contemplated. The impugned Order of suspension is vitiated by mala fide and has been passed by the Second Respondent to take revenge against the Petitioner for having made Complaint against the Second Respondent, who is personally arrayed as the Fourth Respondent. Hence, the impugned Order of Suspension is liable to be set aside in view of Section 33(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The impugned Order is not in conformity in law. Further the learned Single Judge after considering the rival submissions made on either side has passed an order as mentioned hereinabove. Against the said Order passed in W.P.(MD) No.8412 of 2009 dated 13.4.2010, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the Respondent No.2 as the Appellant herein. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has contended that the impugned Order passed by the Single Judge is contrary to law and facts probability of the case. Further, the impugned Order of Suspension has been passed only in accordance with the relevant positions of law. The suspension is not imposed by way of punishment and it is imposed pending enquiry into grave charge of misconduct. Further, the impugned Order of Suspension has been passed only in accordance with the relevant positions of law. The suspension is not imposed by way of punishment and it is imposed pending enquiry into grave charge of misconduct. He would further submit that no prior permission of the Competent Authorities is required under Section 33(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The presence of the Writ Petitioner in the Office premises would deter the other Employee. The reason assigned by the learned Single Judge requires reconsideration. 10. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the First Respondent/Writ Petitioner has stated that the Writ Petitioner is the Protected Workman in conformity of Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 65(iv) of Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 and as such condition of the Writ Petitioner cannot be altered or changed to his disadvantage without sanction from the Competent Authority. 11. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thanjavur region has filed Affidavit dated 14.9.2009 to vacate the Order of Interim Stay granted on 29.8.2009. In that Affidavit, the said Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Thanjavur admitted that he has been impleaded in the personal capacity as Fourth Respondent in the Writ Petition and the Second Respondent has passed an Order dated 10.11.2008 directing the Corporation to reinstate the First Respondent/Petitioner in the Writ Petition as Superintendent of Thanjavur region and the said Order has been complied with and he has been allowed to join as Superintendent on 25.11.2008. In such circumstances only, the First Respondent/Petitioner in the Writ Petition has categorically started that he is the State President of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Tholilargal Sangam Trade Union registered under Trade Union Act, 1926 and the Respondent by Order dated 15.10.2008 recognised him as the protected Workmen in conformity of Section 3394) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 65(iv) of Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules and as such his service condition cannot be altered or changed to his disadvantage without any sanction from the Competent Authority. 12. 12. Further in the Affidavit, the Senior Regional Manager has stated the First Respondent/the Petitioner in the Writ Petition has been placed under suspension on 10.8.2009 pending enquiry into his alleged misbehavior and misconduct within the Office premises of the Second Petitioner/Appellant during working hours and only due to Trade Union rivalry, the First Respondent/Petitioner in the Writ Petition has indulged in the said activities within the Office premises and the Corporation has no other way than to suspend the petitioner in order to maintain discipline among the Employee and the Order of Suspension has been issued only to maintain industrial peace and harmony and to maintain discipline among the Employees of the State Owned Corporation and it is not used as a tool or oppression as against the Office bearer of a Trade Union as alleged by the Writ Petition. However, the abovementioned detailed facts and particulars have not been specifically mentioned in the Suspension Order. For, not mentioning the above mentioned relevant particulars also, the Appellant has not furnished any acceptable and sufficient reasons. 13. Further, the Writ Petitioner, in the Affidavit filed in the Writ Petition dated 21.8.2009, has specifically stated that the impugned Order of Suspension is vitiated by mala fide and has been passed by the Second Respondent to take revenge against the Petitioner for having made Complaints against the Second Respondent, who is personally arrayed as the Fourth Respondent in the Writ Petition. For, that the Second Respondent in the Affidavit dated 14.9.2009 has just stated that the impleading him as the Fourth Respondent in the personal capacity in the Writ Petition is not correct and he has acted only as per the Service Regulations. 14. Further, in the Affidavit, the Fourth Respondent in the Writ Petition has stated that the presence of the First Respondent herein within the Office premises is causing panic among the co-employee and reinstatement of the First Respondent herein without undergoing any enquiry resulting in indiscipline among the co-employee. These facts have not been mentioned in the impugned Suspension Order. 15. Further, in the Affidavit, the Fourth Respondent in the Writ Petition has stated that the presence of the First Respondent herein within the Office premises is causing panic among the co-employee and reinstatement of the First Respondent herein without undergoing any enquiry resulting in indiscipline among the co-employee. These facts have not been mentioned in the impugned Suspension Order. 15. In support of the contention of the Appellant, the learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the Judgment reported in the case of Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. P.T. Ram Sarup and others, AIR 1957 SC 82 (V44 C 12 Feb), wherein it has been observed as follows: “Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act (1950), Section 22(1) Suspension of workers pending enquiry.- The suspension under such circumstance, therefore, could not be a punishment even though it may be of an indefinite duration and would not attract the operation of Section 22 of the Act, so as to require permission thereunder before it is meted out to the Workmen. Held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal ought to have held that a prima facie case for the dismissal of the Workmen had been made out by the Employer and ought to have granted him the permission to dismiss the Workmen.” 16. Further, the learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the Judgment in the case of Management, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and others v. Hotel Workers’ Union, AIR 1959 SC 1342 , and it has been observed thus: “Master and servant – Contract of service – Power to suspend employee cannot be implied – It must be by express contract or by statute – Liability of master to pay wages for suspension period arises when there is no power to suspend. Suspension of workman pending permission being sought under Section 33.” 17. The learned Counsel for the Appellant lastly relied upon the Judgment in the case of Kesorum Cotton Mills Ltd. v. V. Gangadhar and others, AIR 1964 SC 708 (V 51 C 86), wherein it has been observed as follows: “(a) Industrial Dispute – Suspension of Workmen – Workmen fully exonerated – Are entitled to full wages for period of suspension – Exoneration not complete – Lesser punishment than dismissal may be inflicted. Industrial Disputes Act (1947) Section 33 – Employer not entitled to dismiss Workman except with permission of Industrial Tribunal. Industrial Disputes Act (1947) Section 33 – Employer not entitled to dismiss Workman except with permission of Industrial Tribunal. He can suspend Workman pending inquiry and permission of Tribunal _ Permission refused by Tribunal – Workmen is entitled to wages from date of Suspension – Award D/30.12.1960, First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, varied. Held that the circumstances of this case were not exactly similar to those in AIR 1959 SC 923 and therefore, the Principle of that case would not necessarily apply. In the Circumstances, the Supreme Court should not interfere with the Order of the Tribunal. AIR 1959 SC 923 , Distinguished.” 18. However, on a careful analysis of the entire materials on records, it is found that the Writ Petitioner has clearly established that the order of Suspension has not been issued to maintain industrial peace and harmony and to maintain discipline among employees of the State Owned Corporation and the reinstatement of the First Respondent/Writ Petitioner without undergoing any enquiry would not result in indiscipline among the Co-employees. Further, the learned Single Judge has clearly relied upon the relevant provisions of the Sections 33(3) & 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act and has come to the correct conclusion that alteration of Service condition of the Protected Workman shall be only with express permission in writing before whom, the proceeding is pending. Even, Rule 65 of the Industrial Disputes Rules as stated in the impugned Order clearly provides a procedure to be followed to make a person to claim the privilege of Protected Workman and there is no dispute to conclude the Writ Petitioner is the Protected Workman. 19. Further, the Appellant has not disclosed any valid reason except the words and phrases that in the interest of the Corporation in the impugned Order of Suspension. Even from the plain and simple reading of the above mentioned provision of Industrial Disputes Act and Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958, it is clear that the Appellant herein has not passed the Order of Suspension to maintain discipline among the employees and to maintain industrial peace and harmony. 20. For the above mentioned reason and also in the peculiar facts and special circumstances of the case, it is found that the decisions relied upon on behalf of the Appellant are not applicable to the present case. 20. For the above mentioned reason and also in the peculiar facts and special circumstances of the case, it is found that the decisions relied upon on behalf of the Appellant are not applicable to the present case. From a cumulative reading of the decision relied upon on the side of the Appellant and also the details mentioned in the Affidavit filed by the Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation dated 14.9.2009, it is seen that the impugned Order is not factually and legally sustainable. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions put forth on either side has rightly ordered as stated above in the Writ Petition. 21. In view of the discussions made earlier, this Court has not found any attractive force in the contention put forth on the side of the Appellant/Respondent and altogether the present Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 22. In fine, the Writ Appeal is dismissed without costs. The impugned Order shall stand confirmed.