JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorari and to call for the records of the respondent dated 30.08.2003 retrenching the petitioner''s services and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the respondent dated 30.08.2003 retrenching the petitioner''s services and quash the same as illegal. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as construction Engineer in the respondent society on 09.09.2000 by the Special Officer of the society on a consolidated monthly pay of Rs.2,500/-. Ever since he had been rendering sincere and unblemished service in the said post. The petitioner was being paid salary in the scale of pay at Rs.1640-60-2600-75-2900 with other allowances admissible to the said post as per settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act, dated 23.04.2001. Thereafter the respondent by impugned order dated 30.08.2003 retrenched the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.09.2003 A.N. is in violation of 25(F) (a) (b) (c) of the I.D.Act, 1947 r/w Rule 61 of the Tamil Nadu I.D. Rules 1958 stating that the construction works in the Society has been completed in the year 2001 itself and his services are no longer required in the Society. There was no notice to the petitioner prior to the issue of this order as contemplated under the above Act and Rules. The order of retrenchment dated 30.08.2003 is illegal, unlawful and against the mandatory provision of law. While passing the order of retrenchment by the respondent, the respondent has failed to give one month statutory notice prescribed under Section 25(F) (a) of the I.D.Act 1947 nor the respondent paid at the time of retrenchment the one month wages/salary in lieu of such notice thereby violated the above mandatory provision which reads as follows: 25F. Condition precedent to retrenchment of workmen:- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until:- (a) the workman has been given one month''s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice. 3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the respondent has failed to follow Section 25(F) (b) of the I.D.Act, 1947 by not paying the retrenchment compensation along with the order of retrenchment i.e., at the time of passing the retrenchment. Section 25(F) (b) reads as follows:- “25F. Condition precedent to retrenchment of workmen:- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a)*** (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months, and” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if compensation is not paid at the time of the retrenchment the condition of the section 25(F) (b) will attract. In the instant case as the petitioner was not paid the compensation at the time of the retrenchment as required under the above provision of law, the impugned order of retrenchment is liable to be set aside as held by the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court as well as by this Court in various cases. Rule 61 of the Tamil Nadu I.D.Rules is extracted as hereunder:- “Rule 61. Notice of retrenchment: If any employer desires to retrench any workmen employed in his industrial establishment who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under him (hereinafter referred to as “workmen” in this rule and in rules 62 and 63), he shall give notice of such retrenchment [as required under clause (c) of section 25F in Form ''R''] to the State Government”. 5. Aggrieved by the above order of retrenchment dated 30.08.2003 passed by the respondent, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner started his work on the basis of the resolution passed in page no.150 of Minute Book. Though adequate cadre strength was not there, the petitioner was taken into service and the Registrar''s approval was also not obtained for his appointment. The resolution was passed by the Special Officer, Palace Nagar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Salem, without following the rules. Though adequate cadre strength was not there, the petitioner was taken into service and the Registrar''s approval was also not obtained for his appointment. The resolution was passed by the Special Officer, Palace Nagar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Salem, without following the rules. Such an appointment came to be made probably because the petitioner also belongs to the same village in Omalur as that of the then Special Officer. The petitioner was appointed for the purpose of supervising the building which were constructed by the respondent Society. During the Review meeting on 21.07.2003 the Registrar observed that since the construction was over, there was no necessity to supervise any construction and no necessity for the building supervisor. On that basis the Registrar called upon the respondent Society to terminate the services of the petitioner. Subsequent to the Registrar''s advise a communication dated 24.07.2003 to the similar effect was sent by the Deputy Registrar, Housing. On receipt of these communications and to give effect to the orders passed by the superior authority, the services of the petitioner was terminated. Since the post held by the petitioner was abolished the services of the petitioner was terminated, there was no scope for employing the petitioner since there was no necessity to supervise the construction activity as the construction had come to an end. 7. The learned counsel further contended that the respondent being a Co-operative Society, the writ petition would not lie as against the respondent. Further the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was purely contractual and it may not be open to the petitioner to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of enforcing this contract. Even otherwise, since the Registrar has categorically stipulated that the post has become infructuous, the Society is bound by the directions of the Registrar and consequently, the petitioner would not be entitled to seek relief contrary to such directions. On this basis, he submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Even otherwise, since the Registrar has categorically stipulated that the post has become infructuous, the Society is bound by the directions of the Registrar and consequently, the petitioner would not be entitled to seek relief contrary to such directions. On this basis, he submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to the instant case for the reason the petitioner will not fall under the definition Workman in order to claim rights under Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and even assuming that the petitioner was retrenched from service, it is not in all cases of retrenchment the orders of reinstatement would be automatic. In such circumstances, the prayer for quashing the order on the basis of Section 25(F) was contravened is in equitable and unjust. If the petitioner is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner would be entitled to invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and seek alternative remedy before the Labour Court and not approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M.Mahendravarman and others Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 and others reported in 2009 (5) CTC 237 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted as below: “27. Thus applying all the above tests, it could be safely concluded that the 4th respondent does not fall within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus the same is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 28. One of the propositions laid down in K.Marappan''s case by the Larger Bench is as follows: “Proposition N.(vi). The bye-laws made by a co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 do not have the force of law. Hence, where a society cannot be characterised as a ''State'', the service conditions of its employees governed by its bye-laws cannot be enforced through a writ petition.” 9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 10. Hence, where a society cannot be characterised as a ''State'', the service conditions of its employees governed by its bye-laws cannot be enforced through a writ petition.” 9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 10. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent Society to supervise the construction of the building, based on the resolution passed by the Special Officer, Palace Nagar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Salem, without following the rules. During the Registrar Review meeting on 21.07.2003, the Registrar observed that since the construction was over, there was no necessity to supervise any construction and consequently there was no necessity for the building supervisor. On that basis, the respondent Society decided to terminate the service of the petitioner. The above decision taken by the respondent Society to terminate the services of the petitioner is not arbitrary and the same was taken in view of the fact that construction of the building was over hence the termination order passed by the respondent is valid as per law. In regard to the contention raised by the respondent Society regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, it is well settled in the case of M.Mahendravarman and others Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 and others reported in 2009 (5) CTC 237 that writ petition will not lie against the Co-operative Society and on this count also this writ petition has to be dismissed. 11. In view of the above factum of the case this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the respondent dated 30.08.2003 and the same is hereby confirmed. 12. In the result this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.