ORDER : S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. The petitioners have come forward with this writ petition, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 21.06.2011 passed in RC/34783/2011 AES4, in and by which the 1st respondent had declined the request of the petitioners for disbursement of their salary, who worked under the 2nd respondent Society, with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to disburse the salary to them from September, 2008 till July, 2011. 2. The case of the petitioners in nutshell is as follows: (i) The petitioners were employees of the 2nd respondent Society in various capacities for the past 29 years and the main object of their employment is for the welfare of farmers of the State in general and Madurai District in particular. Suddenly, from September, 2008 onwards, the wages/salary were not paid to them, even though the 2nd respondent had raised salary bills and sent to the 1st respondent and the petitioners were not paid salary nearly for 30 months. (ii) Aggrieved by the act of the respondents, the petitioners approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 2954 of 2011 and on 25.04.2011, this Court directed the 1st respondent therein to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 02.02.2011, pursuant to which, their representations were considered on 21.06.2011 by replying as under, which is impugned in this writ petition: "1. According to Section 39 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, every registered Co-operative Society is a body corporate with separate bylaws registered under the said act and are separate legal entities, functioning independently. Every registered Co-operative society has to earn for itself to meet the salary related expenditure and other expenses of the society. 2. It is also pertinent to inform you that the Agro Engineering Services Co-operative societies were formed under the self employment programme. If the societies were unable to pay even salaries to the employees, they have to be wound up and a liquidator will be appointed as per Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and rules, and the liquidator will realize the assets of the society and discharge the liabilities as per the provision of the said Act. Government is not liable to pay arrears of salary or salaries consequent on the winding up of a Co-operative society. 3. Government is not liable to pay arrears of salary or salaries consequent on the winding up of a Co-operative society. 3. Further as alleged by you the 1st respondent Commissioner of Agriculture/Registrar of Agro Engineering Services is not the pay and disbursement authority for the 2nd respondent society. The 2nd respondent is the pay drawing and disbursing authorities of the petitioners." (iii) It is submitted by the petitioners that as per G.O.Ms. No. 584 dated 04.04.1975, the 1st respondent has the power to appoint, pay salary and even take disciplinary proceedings as per law of the 2nd respondent and such being the case, the 1st respondent cannot say that he is not the disbursing authority. It was the 1st respondent, who earlier extended the service of the Special Officers for all Agro Engineering Service centres throughout Tamil Nadu vide order dated 26.05.2010 and therefore, the 1st respondent has ultimate authority in Central Management of the 2nd respondent Society. 3. The 1st respondent has filed a counter, wherein it has been held as under: (i) The 1st respondent has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of case in K. Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and The Special Officer, Vattur Co-operative Agricultural Bank, (2006) 134 CompCas 204. It is stated in the counter that the 2nd respondent Society has been registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the 2nd respondent has its own byelaw in connection with the objection and other affairs of the bank etc. It is also stated that there is an appeal remedy available under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and without availing the same, the petitioner have straightaway come to this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In compliance of the order of this Court passed in W.P.(MD) No. 2954 of 2011 dated 25.04.2011, the 1st respondent has considered the representation of the petitioners and passed the order, which is binding on the petitioners. (ii) The stand taken in the counter is that if there is any claim regarding financial benefits, the petitioners have to approach the Labour Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act and Payment of Gratuity Act. (ii) The stand taken in the counter is that if there is any claim regarding financial benefits, the petitioners have to approach the Labour Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act and Payment of Gratuity Act. The 1st respondent is not the pay and disbursing authority of the petitioners and normally, salary would be paid to the petitioners by the 2nd respondent out of the profit gained from the other sources of works and the petitioners were paid salaries in proportion to the profit and in proportion to their salary. It is stated that for the past 4 years, the 2nd respondent Society has not been running profitably, as some of the employees have not carried out their allotted works properly. It is further stated that the 1st respondent is empowered only to give appropriate direction, circulars and guidelines to the 2nd respondent as per Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 vide R.C. No. 49272/2008/AES. 3 dated 02.05.2008. (iii) It is also stated that the 2nd respondent Society is idle without any earning and work and under these circumstances, the petitioners have no right to claim the provident fund and gratuity amount. Moreover, the Society has not been giving any agricultural equipment like harvesters, diesel engines to the farmers on subsidy rate for the past 3 years due to non availability of those equipment. Therefore, the 1st respondent prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. 4. The 2nd respondent in their counter, while reiterating the similar stand taken by the 1st respondent, has stated as under: (i) Due to financial crush, the 2nd respondent Society was not able to disburse the salary dues and retirement benefits and if the petitioners had discharged their duties by carrying out their allotted works, they would have been paid salary. The petitioners have just signed the attendance register alone and there was no work done by them. Therefore, their salaries were denied on the basis of "No Work No Pay". The 2nd respondent also prayed that the writ petition be dismissed in limine. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 6. A close reading of the affidavit would disclose that the petitioners are the employees of the 2nd respondent Society and the 1st respondent has the administrative control over the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent also prayed that the writ petition be dismissed in limine. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 6. A close reading of the affidavit would disclose that the petitioners are the employees of the 2nd respondent Society and the 1st respondent has the administrative control over the 2nd respondent. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have signed the attendance register between October 2008 and January, 2011. One of the main contentions raised by the respondents, apart from the maintainability of the writ petition, is that employees would be paid wages depending upon the work allotted and performed by them. It has also been stated that in terms of the directions issued under Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, if there are no activities in the Society, the employees are not entitled to any wages on the ground of "No Work No Pay". The said submission of the respondents cannot be accepted, because, since the petitioners are permanent employees of the 2nd respondent Society, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Gratuity Act and other enactments are applicable to them. Once a person is recruited, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to provide employment and if there is no work available, it is open to the employer/2nd respondent to retrench the employees in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. It is seen in this case that admittedly, the 2nd respondent has not retrenched any of the workers by invoking the provisions of the I.D. Act. Moreover, they have also allowed the petitioners to sign in the attendance register without allotment of any work. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioners/employees denied to execute the work allotted to them. Therefore, Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is not applicable to the case of the present case. The plea of maintainability of the writ petition raised by the respondents taking note of the Marappan's case also does not hold good, because if there is any statutory violation, then the said case will not come to the aid of the respondents, as the action of the 2nd respondent in non payment of salary to the petitioners is in violation of Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, any direction issued under Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, cannot override the statutory provisions. Non payment of wages to the employees is nothing, but indirectly forcing them to die by starvation, which amounts to encouraging economic death by the Government. Hence, I have no hesitation to reject the contention with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the observation made in Marappan's case, cited supra and the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted as under: "21.(iii) Even if a society cannot be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, even so a writ would like against it to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the society...... (iv) A society, which is not a 'State' would not normally be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but in certain circumstances, a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutory provisions which need to be complied with by all concerned including societies. If they violate such statutory provisions a writ would be issued for compliance of those provisions." 8. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable by the 2nd respondent to the Chief Justice Relief Fund, High Court, Madras, which, in turn shall be forwarded to the persons affected in Nepal Earthquake Tragedy. Though the petitioners have sought the relief against the 1st respondent, this Court thinks it fit to mould the prayer in view of the fact that the petitioners are the employees of the 2nd respondent and directs the 2nd respondent to pay wages due to the employees/petitioners based on their last drawn wages within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the entire amount accrued thereon is not paid by the 2nd respondent within the stipulated time, then the petitioners are entitled to 12% p.a. till the payment of entire amount. 9. Before parting with this judgment, it is needless to mention here that it is open to the Government to recover the loss caused to the 2nd respondent Society from the errant officer concerned in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Co-operative Consumers' Store ltd. Vs. 9. Before parting with this judgment, it is needless to mention here that it is open to the Government to recover the loss caused to the 2nd respondent Society from the errant officer concerned in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Co-operative Consumers' Store ltd. Vs. Labour Court, Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and another, AIR 1994 SC 23 , wherein it has been held as follows: "5. Public money has been wasted due to adamant behaviour not only of the officer who terminated the services but also due to cantankerous attitude adopted by those responsible for pursuing the litigation before the one or the other authority. They have literally persecuted her. Despite unequal strength the opposite party has managed to survive. We are informed that the opposite party has been reinstated. This was put forward as bonafide conduct of petitioner to persuade us to modify the order in respect of back wages. Facts speak otherwise. Working life of opposite party has been lost in this tortuous and painful litigation of more than twenty years. For such thoughtless acts of its officers the petitioner-society has to suffer and pay an amount exceeding three lakhs is indeed pitiable. But considering the agony and suffering of the opposite party that amount cannot be a proper recompense. We, therefore, dismiss this petition as devoid of any merit and direct the petitioner to comply with the directions of the High Court within the time granted by it. We however leave it open to the society to replenish itself and recover the amount of back wages paid by it to the opposite party from the personal salary of the officers of the society who have been responsible for this endless litigation including the officer who was responsible for terminating the services of the opposite patty. We may clarify that the permission given, shall have nothing to do with the direction to pay the respondent her back wages. Step if any to recover the amount shall be taken only after payment is made to the opposite party as directed by the High Court."