Madras High Court
Arumugamangalam Primary ... vs S.Jeyapaul ... 1St on 21 January, 2021
W.A(MD)No.235 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.235 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012
Arumugamangalam Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Bank,
Arumugamangalam,
Tuticorin District,
Rep. by its Special Officer. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.S.Jeyapaul ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Appellate Authority under the Shops
and Establishment Act.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Tirunelveli.
... Respondents 2 & 3/Respondents 1 & 2
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 23.01.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.6393 of 2004
on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sasikumar
For R – 1 : Mr.S.N.Mohan Gandhi
For RR 2 & 3 : Mr.M.Murugan,
Government Advocate.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.A(MD)No.235 of 2012
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed as against the order, dated
23.01.2012 passed in W.P(MD)No.6393 of 2004.
2.The said Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent/writ
petitioner, who was working as Secretary in Arumugamangalam
Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Tuticorin District, challenging
the proceedings in P.S.A.No.7 of 2003, dated 23.01.2004.
3.The appellant / second respondent-Management had placed
the first respondent / writ petitioner under suspension with effect from
10.08.2000 on certain charges. Admittedly, subsistence allowance was
not paid. Charges were framed and after enquiry, he was dismissed
from service on 20.09.2003. The first respondent / writ petitioner was
entitled for subsistence allowance from 11.08.2000 to 10.12.2001
which comes to Rs.96,605/-. As the subsistence allowance was not
paid, the first respondent / writ petitioner had filed a petition before
the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli for
a direction to pay the subsistence allowance. The third respondent-
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.235 of 2012
Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli also had issued a
direction for payment of 50% of the subsistence allowance for 90 days
and 75% for the next 90 days and thereafter 100%. The said order
granting subsistence allowance was challenged by the appellant /
second respondent-Management by filing an appeal before the
Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by order dated
23.01.2004, set aside the order of the third respondent-Assistant
Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli and remanded the matter back to
the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli for
fresh disposal, which was challenged in the Writ Petition.
4.As the subsistence allowance is part of fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and as it
relates to the survival of an employee during the period of suspension,
the learned Single Judge had held that the first respondent / writ
petitioner was entitled for subsistence allowance and directed the
appellant / second respondent-Management to pay the subsistence
allowance.
5.The appellant / second respondent-Management also had
deposited the amount of the subsistence allowance viz., Rs.96,605/-
in Indian Overseas Bank at Palayamkottai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.235 of 2012
6.It is now stated that the first respondent / writ petitioner
himself was dismissed from service, he is entitled to receive the above
sum. However, there is no grounds available for the appellant / second
respondent-Management to challenge the subsistence allowance
payable and there is no merit in the case.
7.Accordingly, it is open to the first respondent / writ petitioner
to withdraw the subsistence allowance, which is deposited in the Bank.
If there is any interest payable on the amount, which is kept in the
deposit, the first respondent / writ petitioner is entitled to withdraw
the same along with interest.
8.With the above directions, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
21.01.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ps
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.235 of 2012
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate
/ litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.235 of 2012
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
ps
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Appellate Authority under the Shops
and Establishment Act.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Tirunelveli.
W.A(MD)No.235 of 2012
21.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
