7.On examining the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, it is clear that the said Authority has not independently examined whether the Secretary is an employee as per Section 2(a) of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981. Instead, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.Kanagasabapathy Vs. Special Officer, Namakkal District was misconstrued as if it was held in the said judgment that a Secretary in the Cooperative Society is entitled to subsistence allowance under the said Act. As stated supra, it was held in the said judgment that it should be independently examined as to whether the employee concerned is an employee as per S.2(a) of the Payment of Susbsitence Allowance Act notwithstanding the fact that he may not be an employee for the purposes of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. Consequently, the said finding is patently erroneous. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside. However, the case is liable to be remitted back to the Authority for fresh adjudication. At such fresh adjudication, both parties are at liberty to submit relevant documents with regard to the question as to whether the Secretary is an employee as per Section 2(a) of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act. The said Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul is further directed to decide this question independently by examining whether the Secretary qualifies as an employee as per the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act.
