Madras High Court
The Secretary vs Thirunavukkarasu on 14 December, 2021
S.A.No.719 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
S.A.No.719 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
1.The Secretary,
Ulkottai Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society,
Ulkottai Village,
Udaiyarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.
2.The Special Officer,
Ulkottai Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society,
Ulkottai Village,
Udaiyarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.
3.The Assistant Director,
Handloom and Textiles Department,
Kumbakonam.
4.The Director,
Handloom and Textiles Department,
Kuralagam,
Chennai – 600 104 ... Appellants/Defendants
Vs.
1.Thirunavukkarasu
2.Mangayarkarasi ... Respondents/Plaintiffs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
S.A.No.719 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
PRAYER: This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC
against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.62 of 2008 by the Sub-
Court, Ariyalur, dated 13.09.2010, reversing the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.257 of 2006, by the District Munsif Court,
Jayenkondam, dated 18.03.2008.
For Appellants : Mr.D.Gopal
Government Advocate
For R1 : Died
For R2 : Mr.S.Kamadevan
JUDGMENT
The defeated defendant is the appellant herein.
2.This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and
decree passed in A.S.No.62 of 2008 by the Sub-Court, Ariyalur, dated
13.09.2010, wherein, the learned Judge has confirmed the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.257 of 2006, by the District Munsif Court,
Jayenkondam, dated 18.03.2008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.719 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
3.The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.257 of
2006, before the District Munsif Court, Jayenkondam, seeking relief of
claiming Weavers Pension of Rs.200/- by way of mandatory injunction
and they relied upon the following facts:
(a).The plaintiffs have entered into a membership of the Weavers
Pension Scheme on 24.09.1961, the first plaintiff was aged about 70
years and the second plaintiff was aged about 68 years and from
01.07.2000, they are having the hand book relating to Tamil Nadu
Weaver Guidelines, wherein, above 60 years, they are entitle for monthly
pension of Rs.200/- and hence, the suit.
4.The appellants/defendants resisted claiming, inter alia contended
that in view of the bar under Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative
Societies Act, the suit is not maintainable. In respect of the plaintiffs, no
Rules have been violated, though the plaintiffs are aged about 60 years
since they are not satisfied the Rule contemplated under Serial No.3 and
Page No.10 of the hand book, wherein it is stated that prior to the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.719 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
the application, they should have been a member and weaving up to two
years.
5.Before the Trial Court on behalf of the plaintiffs PW1 and PW2
were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked; on behalf of the
defendants DW1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D5 were marked.
6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit on 18.03.2008. Aggrieved
against the same, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.62
of 2008 before the Sub-Court, Ariyalur, wherein, the learned Judge by an
dated 13.09.2010 has revered the judgment and decree passed in the suit
and granted decree without noticing the facts properly. Hence, the
Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants.
7.Heard the respective learned counsels and perused the materials
placed on record.
8.Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel appearing for the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.719 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
respondent made a submissions in support of the judgment of the trial
Court and also submitted that some lenient view may be taken since it is
a beneficiary scheme.
9.As per the records, the first plaintiff had obtained Weavers Cooli
on 17.05.1997, while the second plaintiff had obtained on 25.01.1995
and therefore, immediately prior to the pension, they ought to have
served for two years and besides there should not be any additional
payment for subscription for a period of six months. The Trial Court on
appreciation of the evidence has come to the factual conclusion that the
first plaintiff was aged about 70 years and the second plaintiff was aged
about 68 years at the time of the evidence and they received Weaver cooli
on 15.07.1995 & 21.11.1995 based upon Exs.B4 & B5, they are not
remitted, pursuant to the subscription for six months prior in time.
10.As per the pleadings, on 08.08.2005, the plaintiffs have
enrolled themselves in the membership of the Weavers Pension and the
said application is marked as Ex.B4 and therefore, they must have been
waiving for two years prior to 08.08.2005. However, on factual position,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.719 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
it appears that the first plaintiff served only up to 17.07.1995, while the
second plaintiff has served up to 21.11.1995 only and hence, I find that
they are not entitle for the Weaver Old Age Pension Scheme introduced
in the year 1997.
11.Further, the plaintiffs have found to be not eligible for the
Weavers Pension Scheme, since the date of birth of the first plaintiff is
24.07.1936 and the second plaintiff is 25.06.1938. Subsequent clause in
by law 7 goes to the effect that two years prior to completion of 60 years
they ought to have been in weaving on that score also they have found to
be fall sort of the eligibility.
12.Hence, taking into consideration the factual position that the
plaintiffs have completed waiving up to 58 years while second plaintiff
has completed waiving up to 57 years and they should also completed
two years period as mentioned in the by law, the Trial Court has rightly
come to the conclusion that they are not entitled to, besides the suit is
also held to be not maintainable. However, without noticing the above
fact the Lower Appellate Court has granted the decree.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.719 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
13.Further, taking into consideration the Weavers Pension Scheme
1997, for eligibility of pension in Page No.10, Serial No.3, Section-A as
per the hand book issued by the department, the Trial Court has rightly
come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not satisfied the eligibility
criteria as stated in G.O.Ms.No.199 and hence, I find that the Lower
Appellate Court has not properly apprised of the Rule 7 of the Weavers
Pension Scheme and on the factual position that the persons ought to
have been an active member from the age of 58 to 60 years, which is
mandatory for getting pension and on factual position the
respondent/plaintiff are found to be not active member between the age
58 and 60 years unless the person is active member in the insurance
scheme he is not entitle to.
14.Hence, I find that the finding rendered by the Lower Appellate
court is not in accordance with the above said hand book and on the
factual position, the respondents have not satisfied the eligibility criteria
fixed for Old Age Pension for Wavers. In this view of the matter the
findings of the Lower Appellate Court are stands vacated and the
findings of the Trial Court is restored.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.719 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
15.Accordingly, this Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment
and decree passed in A.S.No.62 of 2008 by the Sub-Court, Ariyalur,
dated 13.09.2010, is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree passed
in O.S.No.257 of 2006, by the District Munsif Court, Jayenkondam,
dated 18.03.2008, is restored. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition stands closed. No costs.
14.12.2021
Internet : Yes
dua
To
1.The Sub-Court, Ariyalur.
2.The District Munsif Court, Jayenkondam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.719 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
dua
S.A.No.719 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
14.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
