P.S. Kailasam, C.J.
1. This appeal is filed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, against the order of Mudaliyar, J., issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Commissioner, dated 10th November, 1969 by which the increment of the respondent was stopped for a period of six months without cumulative effect. The question that arose for consideration was whether the Commissioner had power to impose the punishment of stoppage of increment. The contention is that, though Section 96 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, (before its Amendment by Act LVI of 1961) provided that the Commissioner could impose the penalty of withholding the increments of promotion including stoppage at any efficiency bar, the amended. Act did not provide for any such punishment. Section 36 of the Act LVI of 1961 corresponds to Section 96 of the old Act. It provides that in the case of employees in class III to which the respondent belongs the punishment which it provided for by the by-laws made by the Council under Section 349 could be imposed. It is common ground that no by-laws have been framed by the Council. Therefore the contention is that the Commissioner had no power to impose the punishment which he did, under the amended Act. To this contention the answer of Mr. S. Palaniswami, learned Counsel for the Corporation is that the amended Act provides for transitional powers under Section 102 read with Schedule II of the Act. Section 102 of Act LVI of 1961 provides that the new Act should be read subject to Schedule II and power to remove difficulties. The provision states that in first giving effect to the provisions of the principal Act, they shall be read subject to the Rules in Schedule II. Rule 5 of Schedule II provides that every person included in the Corporation establishment immediately before the date of the commencement of the new Act and who was employed by the Corporation wholly or mainly in connection with the affairs of the Corporation immediately before the said date shall, on and from that date, hold his office in the Corporation by the same tenure at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension and gratuity and other matters as he would have held the same on the date aforesaid, if the new Act had not been passed and shall continue to do so unless and until his remuneration, terms and conditions and his rights and privileges are so altered as to be on the whole not less favourable to him than those to which he was entitled immediately before the said date. This provision makes it clear that an employee shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the office which were in, force before the new Act was passed till bye-laws are framed Under the new Act. The respondent was admittedly recruited to the Corporation service long before the new Act came into force and the old provisions are applicable to him. As the old Act is applicable regarding service conditions, the punishment imposed on the respondent is in accordance with law.
2. This was the view taken by a Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 188 of 1967 (dated 15th July, 1969). The Bench observed that Section 102 provided the power for making transitory provisions and that Schedule II to Madras Act LVI of 1961 by Rule 5 clearly covered the gap brought about by the said amendment and preserved to the Commissioner all the disciplinary powers which he had immediately before the enactment and coming into force of Act LVI of 1961. In that case the employee belonged to Class III and was appointed to the Corporation Service prior to the new Act. It was held that the employee would continue to hold the office by the same tenure at the same remuneration, and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as he was entitled to before the new Act.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent brought to our notice a recent decision of a Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 143 of 1974 where it has been held that the provisions of Section 102, Schedule I, are not applicable. In that case the employee was recruited after the amended Act came into force. Therefore, that decision has no application to the facts of this case. In this view we accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Corporation that the Commissioner had authority to impose the punishment he did. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the order of the Commissioner is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs.