Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs The Joint Commissioner Of Labour on 29 May, 2025
W.P.No.13653 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
RESERVED ON : 24.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P.No. 13653 of 2021
and
W.M.P. No. 14512 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Dharmapuri Co-operative Sugar Mill,
Jerthalav Post,
Palaccode Taluk,
Dharmapuri District – 636 808. …Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour
The Appellate Authority
Under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act
Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour
Salem
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour
The Competent Authority,
Under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act
Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour
Salem
3. A.Gowran
S/o. Alraj
Thirtharakali Village & Post,
Palaccode Taluk,
Dharmapuri District – 636 808. …Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
Prayer in W.P.
To issue a writ in the nature of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the
first respondent culminating in the order dated 24.09.2018 made in A.P.S.A.
No.1 of 2018 and quash the same and pass such further of other orders in the
interest of others.
Prayer in W.M.P.
To stay the operation of the order dated 24.9.2018 made in A.P.S.A.No.1 of
2018 on the file of the first respondent herein pending disposal of the present
writ petition.
Appearance of Parties:
For Petitioner : Mrs.G.Thilakavathi, Senior Counsel
For M/s. R.Gophinath, A.Shahana Fathima &
M.Oviya Nila, Advocates
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.R.Kumaravel, AGP
For Respondent 3 : No appearance
J U D G M E NT
Heard.
2.The present writ petition has been filed by the Co-operative Sugar Mill
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
challenging the order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the first respondent—
Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance
Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subsistence Allowance Act”)—in
A.P.S.A. No. 1 of 2018. By the said order, the Appellate Authority confirmed
the order of the second respondent dated 09.11.2017 passed in P.S.A. No. 1 of
2017, wherein it was held that the third respondent was entitled to receive
subsistence allowance amounting to Rs.1,48,384/-. After accounting for a sum
of Rs.15,022/- already paid, the balance amount payable was determined as Rs.
1,33,362/-.
3.The writ petition was admitted on 02.07.2021, and an interim stay was
granted, initially until 26.08.2021. The stay was subsequently extended on
27.08.2021 up to 17.09.2021, and again on 16.11.2021, it was extended until
further orders. Although the third respondent was duly served, he did not
appear either in person or through counsel. Nevertheless, by order dated
07.11.2024, this Court referred the matter to the Mediation Centre. The first
session was scheduled for 12.11.2024. However, it is seen from the records that
the third respondent failed to appear on 12.11.2024, as well as on the
subsequent scheduled dates—22.11.2024 and 02.12.2024. In view of the non-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
participation, the matter was returned to this Court for final adjudication.
4.It is significant to note that while the petitioner sugar mill has
challenged the appellate order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the first respondent
—confirming the order of the second respondent—it has not chosen to
challenge the original order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the second respondent
in P.S.A. No. 1 of 2017. As a result, even if the appellate order were to be set
aside, the order of the second respondent would continue to remain in force. On
this short ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5.The records reveal that the third respondent was employed as a
Centrifugal Operator in the petitioner mill. He was placed under suspension by
order dated 18.09.2010 issued by the Special Officer, on the ground that he had
been arrested in connection with the murder of a temple priest. Relying on the
byelaws of the society, particularly Byelaw No. 48, the suspension was made
effective from 26.08.2010. The third respondent, by letter dated 25.03.2011,
sought revocation of the suspension and asserted that he had no involvement in
the offence alleged against him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
6.Subsequently, the third respondent filed W.P. No. 24444 of 2011
seeking a direction to the petitioner mill to consider his representation. The writ
petition was disposed of by an order dated 21.10.2011, directing the petitioner
mill to consider the said representation. However, instead of reviewing the
order of suspension, the petitioner mill issued a show cause memo dated
09.11.2011, calling upon the third respondent to explain why disciplinary
action should not be initiated against him. In response, the third respondent
submitted an undated letter requesting payment of subsistence allowance. In the
meantime, by order dated 28.11.2016, the third respondent was dismissed from
service with retrospective effect from 26.08.2010, on the ground that he had
failed to submit any explanation to the show cause notice until he reached the
age of superannuation on 31.12.2011.
7.The third respondent, who was arrayed as Accused No. 3 in Sessions
Case No. 4 of 2012, was ultimately acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge by
judgment dated 30.07.2021.
8.The third respondent subsequently approached the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
by filing an application under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of
Subsistence Allowance Act, seeking subsistence allowance for the period from
26.08.2010 to 31.12.2011. The said application, dated ‘Nil’ July 2016, claimed
a total amount of Rs. 1,45,737/- as subsistence allowance. Owing to the delay
in filing the application, the third respondent also filed an application for
condonation of delay in P.S.I.A. No. 3 of 2016 before the second respondent.
The petitioner mill objected to the condonation of delay.
9.The second respondent condoned the delay and took up the application
for subsistence allowance on file as P.S.A. No. 1 of 2017. In the proceedings,
the third respondent examined himself as PW1 and marked seven documents on
his side, which were exhibited as Exs. P1 to P7. On behalf of the petitioner
mill, one V. Kuppusamy, Section Superintendent, was examined as RW1, and
four documents were filed, marked as Exs. R1 to R4.
10.The second respondent, after affording an opportunity of hearing to
both parties and considering the evidence placed on record, concluded that the
third respondent had been kept under continuous suspension until he attained
the age of superannuation. It was noted that a sum of Rs. 15,022/- had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
paid to him as subsistence allowance. Applying the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, the authority held that the third
respondent was entitled to subsistence allowance and accordingly computed the
total payable amount as Rs. 1,48,384/-. After giving credit for the amount
already paid, the balance payable was determined as Rs. 1,33,362/-.
11.Instead of complying with the order, the petitioner mill deposited the
amount with the second respondent under cover of a letter dated 02.02.2018,
and simultaneously preferred an appeal before the first respondent in A.P.S.A.
No. 1 of 2018. The Appellate Authority, as already noted, dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent.
12.During cross-examination before the second respondent, the
management witness (RW1) stated that the third respondent had been paid
subsistence allowance for the first three months in accordance with Byelaw No.
48. In response to further questions posed during cross-examination, he
deposed as follows:—
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
“Miyapd; rpwg;g[ Jiztpjp vz;/48 (Ex.R2)d;go jw;fhypf
gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;l K:d;W khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; jk;kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;l
Fw;wr;rhl;LfspypUe;J tpLgltpy;iy vd;why; gzpapypUe;J tpyf;fp
tplyhk; vd;fpdw; Jiztpjpapd;go mog;gilapy; eltof;if vLj;J
kDjhuiu gzpapypUe;J tpyf;fpdPu;fsh vd;why; ,y;iy/ kDjhuu;
jw;fhypf gzpePf;f fhyj;jpw;F jkJ 16/06/2016 (08/07/2016)Mk;
njjpapll; kDtpy; (krh/M/vz;/4) gpiHg;g{jpak; tH';ff; nfhupajw;F
VjhtJ gjpy; bfhLj;jPu;fsh vd;why; ,y;iy/ kDjhuu;
gpiHg;g{jpak; tH';ff;nfhup ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;F
bjhLj;jgpdd ; u; epu;thfj; jug;gpy; mspj;j fojj;jpy; ru;f;fiuJiw
,af;Fdu; mtu;fspd; mDkjpnfhup fojk; vGjpa[s;nshk;/ gjpy;
fpilj;jt[ld; gpiHg;g{jpak; tH';fg;gLk; vd;W bjuptpj;Js;sPu;fs;
my;yth vd;why; Mkhk;/ mjdpilapy; kDjhuu; jw;fhypf
gzpePf;fj;jpy; ,Ue;j 26/08/2010 Kjy; 23/11/2010 tiua[ss ; 90
ehl;fSf;F kl;Lk; gpiHg;g{jpakhf U:/15022-? kl;Lk;
tH';fpas [ s
; Pu;fs; vd;why; Mkhk;/ kDjhuu; gpiHg;g{jpak;
tH';ff;nfhup ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;F bjhLj;J ehd;F khj';fs;
fHpe;j gpdd ; u;jhd; kDjhuiu gzpePf;fk; bra;J cj;jut[
gpwg;gpj;Js;sPuf; s; vd;why; Mkhk;/ kDjhuu; Xa;t[bgw ntz;oa
njjp 31/12/2011 vd;why; rup/ kDjhuu; Xa;t[ bgw ntz;oa
njjpahd 31/12/2011 md;W gzpapypUe;J Xa;t[bgw cj;jut[
gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;ljh vd;why; ,y;iy/ mg;gobad;why; kDjhuu; Xa;t[
bgwntz;oa njjpad;Wk; jw;fhypf gzpePf;fj;jpy; jhd; ,Ue;jhu;
vd;why; Mkhk;/ Miyapd; rpwg;g[ Jiztpjp vz;/48(a)d;go
Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;ltu; ePjpkd;wj;jhy; Fw;wr;rhl;oypUe;J
tpLtpf;fg;gl;lhy; kPzL ; k; ntiy mspff; g;gl ntz;Lk; vd;why; rup/
j';fs; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s Ex.R4 Mtzj;jpd;go kDjhuiu
jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;l njjpapypUe;J epue;ju gzpePf;fk;
bra;Js;sPu;fs; my;yth vd;why; Mkhk;/ Miyapd; rpwg;g[ Jiz
tpjpfspy; mt;thW Kd;njjpapl;L epue;ju gzpePff; k; bra;tjw;F
tHptif cs;sjh vd;why; rupay;y.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
13.The sole contention advanced by the petitioner mill is that its Special
Byelaw No. 48 limits the payment of subsistence allowance to a period of three
months, and thereafter, in the event of a criminal case, the employee shall be
dismissed from service. However, in the present case, no such dismissal was
effected, even when the third respondent reached the age of superannuation. It
is pertinent to note that the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act,
1981 is a special legislation enacted by the Tamil Nadu Legislature to govern
the payment of subsistence allowance, and it received the assent of the
President on 21.07.1981. Under Section 3(1) of the Act, the payment of
subsistence allowance to an employee under suspension is made mandatory,
and the applicable rates are prescribed therein. The provision reads as follows:-
“3. Payment of subsistence allowance-
(1) An employee who is placed under suspension shall, during
the period of such suspension, be entitled to receive payment
from the employer as subsistence allowance, an amount equal
to fifty percentum of the wages which the employee was
drawing immediately before suspension, for the first ninety
days reckoned from the date of such suspension:
Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds ninety
days but does not exceed one-hundred and eighty days, the
employee shall be entitled to receive, after the said period of
ninety days, a subsistence allowance equal to seventy-five
percentum of the wages which the employee was drawing
immediately before his suspension:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
Provided also that where the enquiry or criminal proceeding
is prolonged beyond the period of ninety days for reasons
directly attributable to the employee, the subsistence
allowance shall, for the period exceeding ninety days, be
reduced to fifty percentum of the wages, which the employee
was drawing immediately before his suspension.”
14.The aforesaid provision also contemplates situations where an
employee is facing criminal proceedings. It is not the case of the petitioner mill
that it has obtained any exemption from the operation of the Act under Section
6. In the absence of such exemption, the petitioner mill remains bound by the
provisions of the Act, which, under Section 5, preserves only those rights or
privileges that are more favourable than those conferred by the Act. Section 5
of the Act reads as follows:—
“5. Savings of certain rights and privileges –
Nothing in this Act shall affect any right or privilege to which any
employee is entitled on the date of commencement of this Act
under any law for the time being in force or under any contract,
custom or usage which is more favourable to him than any right or
privilege conferred upon him by this Act.”
15.Accordingly, the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, being a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
special legislation, prevails in the present case—particularly in light of Section
5 of the said Act. Consequently, the reliance placed by the petitioner mill on
Special Byelaw No. 48 is wholly misplaced and has no application to the facts
at hand. Even otherwise, the petitioner mill is governed by the provisions of the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. To address the difficulties
faced by workmen in receiving subsistence allowance, the said Act was
amended by Central Act 18 of 1982, with effect from 17.05.1982, introducing
Section 10A, which provides for the payment of subsistence allowance. The
provision reads as follows:—
“Section 10A: Payment of subsistence allowance –
(1) Where any workmen is suspended by the employer
pending investigation or inquiry into complaints or charges
of misconduct against him, the employer shall pay to such
workman subsistence allowance—
(a)at the rate of fifty per cent. of the wages which the
workman was entitled to immediately preceding the date of
such suspension, for the first ninety days of suspension; and
(b)at the rate of seventy-five per cent. of such wages for the
remaining period of suspension if the delay in the
completion of disciplinary proceedings against such
workman is not directly attributable to the conduct of such
workman.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
16.In view of the foregoing, the petitioner mill is left with no option but
to comply with its statutory obligation to pay subsistence allowance to any
workman suspended pending enquiry. The reliance placed on Special Byelaw
No. 48 is misplaced and cannot withstand legal scrutiny. Between the
obligation to pay subsistence allowance under Section 10A of the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, the latter must prevail. Since the
State Act (Act 43 of 1981) has received the assent of the President, it holds the
force of law in the State under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. Moreover,
Section 5 of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act preserves only those
terms that are more favourable to the workman. In the present case, the
petitioner mill is bound to comply with the order passed by the second
respondent—which has not been challenged before this Court—and as
confirmed by the impugned order.
17.It is also relevant to note that the third respondent was acquitted by
the criminal court—a fact that remains undisputed by the petitioner mill.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition also stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
writ petition, there shall be no impediment to the third respondent withdrawing
the amount presently lying with the second respondent.
18.For having instituted such a writ petition, particularly in a matter
pertaining to subsistence allowance, the petitioner mill is directed to pay costs
of Rs. 5,000/- to the third respondent. The said amount shall be paid by way of
cheque, sent directly to the third respondent, and a compliance memo
confirming such payment shall be filed before this Court.
19.As the third respondent has not appeared despite due service of notice,
it is presumed that factors such as his economic condition or advanced age may
have constrained his ability to appear before this Court. Accordingly, the
Registry is directed to dispatch a free copy of this order to the third respondent
forthwith.
29.05.2025
ay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
To
1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour
The Appellate Authority
Under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act
Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour
Salem
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour
The Competent Authority,
Under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act
Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour
Salem
3. A.Gowran
S/o. Alraj
Thirtharakali Village & Post,
Palaccode Taluk,
Dharmapuri District – 636 808.
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 05:05:24 pm )
