[Cites 24, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Kancheepuram Central Co-Operative ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Labour – Ii on 24 February, 2026
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
2026:MHC:766
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON :06.01.2026
ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON :24.02.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
W.P.No.4617 of 2019:
The Kancheepuram Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director
No.15-G, Sheikpet North Street
Kancheepuram – 631 501. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II
(Appellate Authority under Payment of
Subsistence Allowance) Act, 1981.
D.M.S. Compound
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Asst. Commissioner of Labour
(The Competent Authority under the Payment of
Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981)
Office of Dy.Commissioner of Labour
D.M.S. Compound
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.
3.G.Purushothaman (Deceased)
Manager (Under suspension)
Door No.4/86, 3rd Cross Street
A.G.S.Colony, Velacheri, Chennai – 600 042.
Page 1 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
4.Kanchanamala .P
W/o G.Purushothaman
5.P.Umamaheshwari
D/o G.Purushothaman
6.Suvetha .P
D/o G.Purushothaman
RR4 to 6 are all residing at
Door No.4/86, 3rd Cross Street
A.G.S.Colony, Velacheri, Chennai – 600 042.
(RR4 to 6 are substituted as legal heirs
of deceased R3, as per the order of this Court
dated 28.03.2025 in W.M.P.No.9949 of 2024
in W.P.No.4617 of 2019) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first
respondent dated 10.05.2017 made in PSA (Appeal) No.1/2016 confirming the
order of the second respondent dated 19.10.2015 made in PSA No.20/2010 and
quash the same and pass such further or other orders.
W.P.No.30642 of 2024:
The Management of the Kancheepuram
Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager
No.15-G, Sheikpet North Street
Kancheepuram – 631 501. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Page 2 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour – 2
The Appellate Authority under Payment of
Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981
D.M.S. Compound
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour
(The Authority under Payment of
Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981
D.M.S. Compound
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.
3.S.P.Kanchanamala
W/o G.Purushothaman (late)
Door No.4/86, 3rd Cross Street
A.G.S.Colony, Velacheri, Chennai – 600 042. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first
respondent culminating in impugned order dated 23.01.2023 made in PSA
(Appeal) No.1/2022 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders.
In both the Writ Petitions:
For the petitioner : Ms.G.Thilagavathy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Gopinath
For the respondents : Mr.S.Senthil Murugan
Special Government Pleader for RR1&2
Mr.R.Ganesh
Legal Aid Counsel for RR4 to 6
in W.P.No.4617 of 2019 and
for R3 in W.P.No.30642 of 2024
Page 3 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
COMMON ORDER
A.The Writ Petitions:
The Writ Petition No.4617 of 2019 is filed challenging the order of the
original authority, viz., the Assistant Commissioner of Labour – the Competent
Authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 and the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II - Appellate Authority under Payment of
Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, Chennai made in PSA No.20/2010 and PSA
(Appeal) No.1/2016 dated 19.10.2015 and 10.05.2017 respectively.
The Writ Petition No.30642 of 2024 is filed challenging the order of the
order of the 1st respondent, culminating in impugned order dated 23.01.2023
made in PSA (Appeal) No.1 of 2022 and quash the same.
B.Case of the Petitioner:
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petitions are that the
petitioner viz., The Kancheepuram Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a Co-
operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act,
1983. The 3rd respondent in W.P.No.4617 of 2019 - G.Purushothaman
(Workman) was its employee. Since he died pending the Writ Petition, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
respondents 4 to 6 are now substituted and represented as his legal heirs.
2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the said workman entered the
services of the petitioner – Society as a Manager. While so, three charge
memoranda were issued against the workman. On 29.07.2004, a charge was
levelled against him that after advancing a loan, he has not taken steps to
promptly recover the outstanding loan amount, even after default. On
16.08.2004, two charges were levelled that
(i) he failed to submit the monthly accounts of the branch, in which he was
serving and
(ii) failed to reconcile the six accounts mentioned in the said charge No.2
and submit a report.
2.2. On 20.09.2004, three charges were levelled against him stating that
(i) with reference to the loan of one – C.Govindarajan, instead of getting
collateral security worth, twice the loan amount of Rs.4,75,000/-, he had
accepted collateral security of a property worth only of Rs.6,00,000/-, leading to
the loan being outstanding;
(ii) The second charge is that with reference to the said property, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
executing the mortgage deed, he failed to obtain the encumbrance certificate,
ensuring whether the mortgage in the name of the bank is reflected in the
encumbrance certificate or not; and
(iii) The third charge is that he failed to recover the said loan amount every
month and resulting in the loss of business to the petitioner – Society.
2.3. When enquiry into these charge memoranda were pending, the
workman was to superannuate from service on 01.12.2005, and therefore, he was
placed under suspension on 30.11.2005, so as to continue the disciplinary
enquiry. On 31.12.2007, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies
submitted all three enquiry reports. It is seen that certain charges were held to be
proved and certain charges were held to be not proved. Thereafter, in the year
2010, a second show cause notice was issued to the workman, calling for his
further explanation.
2.4. It is at that juncture, 01.07.2010, the workman filed an application for
payment of subsistence allowance, before the original authority – the 2 nd
respondent in W.P.No.4617 of 2019, under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Payment
of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 (hereinafter in short ‘the Act’), claiming
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
subsistence allowance to the tune of Rs.13,60,369/- from the date of suspension
till 30.06.2010. Even after the filing of the application, the disciplinary enquiry
was never concluded and was kept pending by the petitioner – Society. Neither
an order of punishment was passed nor the terminal benefits were paid to the
deceased workman.
2.5. The application was resisted by the petitioner – Society, by filing a
counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the relief sought for
by the workman was based on surmises and the petitioner is conscious of the fact
that he has been placed on suspension on 30.11.2005 and thereafter, he had
reached the age of superannuation on 01.12.2005. It is further held that the
delinquencies involve serious charges and the charges were also held to be
proved and therefore, the petition has to be dismissed.
2.6. Thereafter, the original authority passed the impugned order on
19.10.2015 holding that when the workman was placed under suspension on
30.11.2005 and for the period upto 30.06.2010, the workman is entitled for
subsistence allowance i.e., @ 50% for the initial 90 days, 75 % for the next 90
days, 100% for the next 49 months and 3 days and in all calculated the sum at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
Rs.13,62,949/- and directed payment with 10% further interest. Aggrieved by the
same, an appeal was preferred before the 1st respondent.
2.7. Before the 1st respondent, it was contended that the by-laws of the
petitioner – Society more specifically by-law No.22 (5) expressly holds that the
employees who continued under suspension, after superannuation will not be
entitled for subsistence allowance and it was further contended that the by-laws
were also specifically upheld by a Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.34693 of
2005, etc, Batch.
2.8. The Appellate Authority once again considered and found that as per
the records, delay in conducting the disciplinary enquiry was solely on the
petitioner – Society and the workman being under suspension, no way
responsible for the delay. The workman was placed under suspension for a
period of three years and nothing was done during the said period and thereafter
enquiry could not commence, even after two more years of delay. Since the
workman was not permitted to retire and kept under suspension, it was held that
the workman was entitled for subsistence allowance. Aggrieved by the same,
W.P. No.4617 of 2019 is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
2.9. Once again in the year 2016, the workman had filed an application for
payment of subsistence allowance for the further period from 01.07.2010 to
31.07.2016 in PSA No.25 of 2017. However, the original authority held that
when the by-laws dis-entitle the workman of any subsistence allowance, after the
date of retirement, no claim can be made under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu
Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981. Aggrieved thereby, the wife of the
workman has filed PSA No.1 of 2022 before the Appellate Authority and the
Appellate Authority found that the findings of the original authority are
unsustainable and allowed the appeal, by remanding the matter back to the
original authority, for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the said order,
W.P.No.30642 of 2024 is filed.
C. Submissions of the Petitioner:
3. Ms.G.Thilagavathy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner – Society would submit that the conditions of service of the
employees of the Co-operative Society is bound by the special by-laws framed
by the Co-operative Society. Clause 19 (2) and 22 (5) of the special by-laws read
as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
“"19. KIND OF PENALTIES
2. The disciplinary proceedings instituted against an
employee, which he was in service, shall be deemed to be
proceedings under this Special bye law, even after his
retirement, and be continued and concluded by the competent
authority in the same manner as if the employee had continued
in service. In the event of any such disciplinary proceedings
having been initiated and if the bank has reason to believe that
the disciplinary proceedings will result in the removal or
dismissal of the employee from service, the bank shall place the
employee under suspension. In such cases, the employee is not
eligible for payment of subsistence allowance, the bank also,
shall not make payment of the terminal benefits like gratuity,
etc., payable to the employee until the disciplinary proceedings
are finally concluded".
…………
…………
22. SUSPENSION
(5) The employee under suspension shall not be allowed
to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. His suspension
shall be deemed to have been extended till the disposal of the
disciplinary proceedings against him. During the extended
period, the service rights accrued to the employee shall cease on
the date of superannuation and the employee shall not be entitled
for subsistence allowance".”
3.1. Therefore, when the special by-laws specifically dis-entitle the
workman, after the date of attaining the age of superannuation, no such claim is
maintainable. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that by the Judgment in
W.P.No.34693 of 2005, etc., Batch, this Court had also upheld the validity of the
by-laws. The same is binding on the workman. Therefore, no subsistence
allowance need be paid to the deceased workman, after 01.12.2005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
3.2. The second contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that, a reading
of Section 3 (4) of the Act, it would be clear that the subsistence allowance shall
be paid on the date or the dates on which the wages due to the employee, but for
his suspension, would have become payable. Therefore, even under Section 3 of
the Act, the subsistence allowance post date of superannuation is not payable.
3.3. The third contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the
workman was a Manager of the Co-operative Society and as such would not fall
within the definition of the term ‘employee’ as defined under the Act, as the
definition clearly excludes the persons who are employed primarily in a
managerial capacity. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that
the Writ Petitions are liable to be allowed.
D. Submissions of the Respondents:
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the legal heirs of
the workman would submit that so long as the employer – employee relationship
exists, the workman is entitled for the payment of subsistence allowance. The
same has rightly been calculated by the authorities. The learned counsel would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
rely upon the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.22957 of 2012 (B.V.Narendra
Kumar Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvallur Region,
Tiruvallur and Others) to contend that even as against the employee of the Co-
operative Society, the subsistence allowance was ordered to be paid. The learned
counsel would rely upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.A.
(MD) No.386 of 2022 (P.Subramani Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Kilpauk, Chennai and Others) for the proposition that even the Co-operative
Society’s employee against whom the disciplinary enquiry was kept pending for
beyond 180 days was held to be entitled for 100 % salary as the subsistence
allowance.
4.1. The learned counsel would also rely upon the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.3895 of 2019 (The Additional Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Sales, Planning and Development, Kilpauk, Chennai
and Others Vs. K.Ulaganathan) to contend that when the enquiry was pending,
it is incumbent upon the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused
the material records of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
E. Consideration and Questions:
6. Upon consideration thereof, the following questions arise for
consideration,
1) Whether the mandate for payment of subsistence allowance under the
Act, to the employees who are kept under suspension will be applicable for the
employees of the Co-operative Societies on account of its own by-laws ?
2)Whether the mandate for payment of subsistence allowance under
Section 3 has to be restricted only upto the date of superannuation in view of
Section 3 (4) of the Act ?
3) Whether the workman in the instant case is entitled to invoke the
provisions of the Act, in as much as he is the Manager ?
4) To what relief, the parties are entitled to ?
F. Question No.1:
7. It can be seen that there is no provision excluding the applicability of
the Labour Welfare Legislation to the Co-operative Societies Act, especially
when the Labour Welfare Legislations are Central Legislation, unless the
applicability is expressly excluded by the State Act, viz., the Co-operative
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
Societies Act that too with the assent of the President, the applicability cannot be
excluded. Useful reference in this regard can be made to the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.A. Annamma Vs. Cochin Coop. Hospital
Society Ltd.1, . Therefore, if provisions such as Section 3 of the Act or the
Industrial Establishments (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable, merely
because the Society is governed by by-laws, it cannot be contended that such by-
laws would override the provisions of the Act, particularly when they are
contrary to the provisions of labour welfare legislation. The by-laws of the Co-
operative societies is held not be a subordinate legislation but at best only be a
contract between the society and its employees, and therefore cannot override a
legislative provision.
G. Question No.2:
8. In this regard, though observations were made with reference to the
government servants, the following paragraphs in the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in M.Paul Anthony Vs.Bharat Gold Mines Limited and
Another2 has to be adverted to,
1 (2018) 2 SCC 729
2 (1999) 3 SCC 679
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
“27. The order of suspension does not put an end to an
employee's service and he continues to be a member of the
service though he is not permitted to work and is paid only
subsistence allowance which is less than his salary. (See: State
of M.P. v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 2 SCC 288 : (1977) 2
SCR 555 : AIR 1977 SC 1466] .)
28. Service rules also usually provide for payment of salary at a
reduced rate during the period of suspension. (See: Fundamental
Rule 53.) This constitutes the “subsistence allowance”. If there
is no provision in the rules applicable to a particular class of
service for payment of salary at a reduced rate, the employer
would be liable to pay full salary even during the period of
suspension.
29. Exercise of right to suspend an employee may be justified on
the facts of a particular case. Instances, however, are not rare
where officers have been found to be afflicted by a “suspension
syndrome” and the employees have been found to be placed
under suspension just for nothing. It is their irritability rather
than the employee's trivial lapse which has often resulted in
suspension. Suspension notwithstanding, non-payment of
subsistence allowance is an inhuman act which has an
unpropitious effect on the life of an employee. When the
employee is placed under suspension, he is demobilised and the
salary is also paid to him at a reduced rate under the nickname
of “subsistence allowance”, so that the employee may sustain
himself. This Court, in O.P. Gupta v. Union of India [(1987) 4
SCC 328 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 400 : (1987) 5 ATC 14] made the
following observations with regard to subsistence allowance:
(SCC p. 340, para 15)
“An order of suspension of a government servant does
not put an end to his service under the Government. He
continues to be a member of the service in spite of the
order of suspension. The real effect of suspension as
explained by this Court in Khem Chand v. Union of
India [AIR 1958 SC 300 : (1959) 1 LLJ 167] is that he
continues to be a member of the government service but
is not permitted to work and further during the period of
suspension he is paid only some allowance — generally
called subsistence allowance — which is normally less
than the salary instead of the pay and allowances he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
would have been entitled to if he had not been
suspended. There is no doubt that an order of suspension,
unless the departmental enquiry is concluded within a
reasonable time, affects a government servant
injuriously. The very expression ‘subsistence allowance’
has an undeniable penal significance. The dictionary
meaning of the word ‘subsist’ as given in Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary, Vol. II at p. 2171 is ‘to remain alive
as on food; to continue to exist’. ‘Subsistence’ means —
means of supporting life, especially a minimum
livelihood.”
(emphasis supplied)
30. If, therefore, even that amount is not paid, then the very
object of paying the reduced salary to the employee during the
period of suspension would be frustrated. The act of non-
payment of subsistence allowance can be likened to slow-
poisoning as the employee, if not permitted to sustain himself on
account of non-payment of subsistence allowance, would
gradually starve himself to death.
31. On joining government service, a person does not mortgage
or barter away his basic rights as a human being, including his
fundamental rights, in favour of the Government. The
Government, only because it has the power to appoint does not
become the master of the body and soul of the employee. The
Government by providing job opportunities to its citizens only
fulfils its obligations under the Constitution, including the
Directive Principles of State Policy. The employee, on taking up
an employment only agrees to subject himself to the regulatory
measures concerning his service. His association with the
Government or any other employer, like instrumentalities of the
Government or statutory or autonomous corporations, etc., is
regulated by the terms of contract of service or service rules
made by the Central or the State Government under the proviso
to Article 309 of the Constitution or other statutory rules
including certified standing orders. The fundamental rights,
including the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution or
the basic human rights are not surrendered by the employee. The
provision for payment of subsistence allowance made in the
service rules only ensures non-violation of the right to life of the
employee. That was the reason why this Court in State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale [(1983) 3 SCC 387 : 1983
SCC (L&S) 391 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 667 : (1983) 3 SCR 337 : AIR
1983 SC 803] struck down a service rule which provided for
payment of a nominal amount of rupee one as subsistence
allowance to an employee placed under suspension. This
decision was followed in Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v.
Presiding Officer [(1986) 3 SCC 131 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 411 :
(1986) 2 SCR 1059 : AIR 1986 SC 1168] and it was held in that
case that if an employee could not attend the departmental
proceedings on account of financial stringencies caused by non-
payment of subsistence allowance, and thereby could not
undertake a journey away from his home to attend the
departmental proceedings, the order of punishment, including
the whole proceedings would stand vitiated. For this purpose,
reliance was also placed on an earlier decision in Ghanshyam
Das Shrivastava v. State of M.P. [(1973) 1 SCC 656 : 1973 SCC
(L&S) 289 : AIR 1973 SC 1183]”
8.1. The principles mentioned above that once the employee is continued
to be placed under suspension, the employer – employee relationship subsists
and the subsistence allowance is the barest minimum that is required for the
sustenance of the employee and forms part of the human rights, and the
continuation of the enquiry without paying the subsistence allowance will not
even be a fair opportunity, are all applicable in all equal force even to the
employees of the private sectors or the co-operative sector.
8.2. In this background, if Section 3 of the Act, has to be read and the
entire Section 3 is extracted hereunder for ready reference,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
“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:
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.
(2) An employee shall not be entitled to receive any subsistence
allowance if he accepts any other employment during the period
of his suspension in any establishment other than the
establishment where he had been working immediately before
his suspension.
(3) An employee shall not, in any event, be liable to refund or
forfeit any part of the subsistence allowance admissible to him
under sub-section (1) :
Provided that where the employee is exonerated of the charge
based on which his suspension was ordered, the subsistence
allowance paid to him for any period shall be adjusted against
the full wages admissible to him for the period of suspension.
(4) The subsistence allowance under sub-section (1) shall be
paid by the employer to the employee on the date or dates on
which the wages due to the employee, but for his suspension,
would have become payable.”
Thus, it can be seen that Section 3 (1) makes it mandatory for payment of
subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and the rates are given
with reference to the number of days mentioned therein. The dis-entitlement is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
mentioned under Section 3 (2) that if the employee accepts any other
employment during the period of suspension, then he will not be entitled to
receive any subsistence allowance. Sub section (3) provides that it is not liable to
be refunded or forfeited. However, the proviso to Section 3 (3) states that the
subsistence allowance paid shall be adjustable on the wages payable to the
workman if ultimately the workman is exonerated of the charges.
8.3. In this case, the workman is deemed to be exonerated of the charges,
since until his date of death in the year 2021, no final orders on the disciplinary
enquiry has been passed. However, even then no additional wages remains to be
payable. It is in this connection, Section 3 (4) also holds that the subsistence
allowance is liable to be paid on the dates on which the workman would have
been otherwise receiving the wages if not for his suspension. Therefore, a
combined reading of the proviso to Section 3 (3) and 3 (4), it would be clear that
the same is not permissible after the date of superannuation, unlike the case of
the government servants, where the rules specifically provide for payment of
subsistence allowance, even after attaining the age of superannuation, so long as
they are in service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
8.4. In this regard, in W.P.(MD) No.19460 of 2016 etc, (The Management
/ President – P1326, Thiruvaiyaru Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit
Society Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Another) this Court
had already taken such a view. Further, Section 5 of the Act saves the right of the
workman, if there is a more favourable provision to him. In this regard, Section
10 A of the Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 provides for
subsistence allowance for the workman who are placed under suspension. In the
standing orders, no provisions similar to Section 3 (3) or Section 3 (4) of the Act
is not there. The term ‘industrial or other establishment’ is defined under the Act
to mean the same as Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Section 2 (e) of the said act
defines ‘Industrial establishment’ and a reading thereof, it cannot be said that the
petitioner which is a Society will come within the said definition. Therefore, in
the instant case, except under Section 3 of the Act, relief could not be granted
under any other provision, as there are no service rules entitling the workman to
receive subsistence allowance after the date of superannuation.
H. Question No.3:
9. Firstly, it can be seen that merely because, the workman is termed as
‘Manager’ that by itself would not dis-entitle the person. It is for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
Management to plead and prove that his activities primarily is on the managerial
and administrative side. As far as the first order directing the payment of
subsistence allowance, it can be seen that such a plea was not taken before the
authorities and has been taken before this Court, for the first time. However, with
reference to the second order, the matter is remanded back to the original
authority and therefore, it is possible for the Management to take such a plea on
a wholesome consideration of the case. It is very clear that the workman was the
Manager of the Kancheepuram Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, in its various
branches. It is common knowledge that the Branch Manager is the head of the
branch, who grants leave and manages the affairs of the entire branch and he has
powers even to initiate disciplinary action etc. Apart from ultimately sanctioning
the loans, the duties are primarily in managerial and administrative in nature.
The same can also be taken into account. Therefore, in the special facts and
circumstances of the case, even though it is taken belatedly in the second round
of litigation, when the claim of the Management goes to the root of the matter as
to the entitlement of a person, the same can also be considered by this Court.
Accordingly, on consideration, since the workman is admittedly a Manager, he
does not come within the term ‘employee’ under the Act and therefore, his
petition before the authorities was not maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
I. Question No.4:
10. In this case, the legal heirs of the workman cannot be left high and dry,
in view of the following facts:
10.1. the charges were mentioned supra.
10.2. The charge memorandum was issued in the year 2004. The workman
had attained the age of superannuation with effect from 30.11.2005.
10.3. Of the three charge memoranda, in respect of the second charge
memorandum dated 16.08.2004, ultimately the proceedings were dropped by the
management on 30.05.2020 and punishments for the other two charge
memoranda dated 29.07.2004 and 20.09.2004 were imposed on 28.05.2020 and
31.08.2020 respectively. It is stated that on filing the revision petition, the
punishments were set aside vide G.O.Ms. No. 87, Co-operation, Food and
Consumer Protection (CC2) Department, dated 11.07.2023.
10.4. Ultimately only on 17.11.2020, a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and on
31.12.2020 a sum of Rs. 1,62,690/- and on 24.11.2023 a sum Rs.38,423/- was
settled on the employee. After attaining the age of superannuation, it can be seen
that only for the reasons that recovery proceedings against the loans were
pending, the disciplinary proceedings were unconscionably kept pending by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
management. The employee ultimately died on 01.06.2021. The employee was
casually placed under suspension from the year 2005 and he is neither entitled
for subsistence allowance nor was given his retiral benefits. Any employee
works during the prime of his life and is entitled to live on his retirement benefits
after attaining the superannuation. The value of the amounts have completely
gone. While any employee retiring in the year 2020 or 2021 will get atleast 4
times the amount that is released to the petitioner at the amounts prevailing in the
year 2005. Therefore, this is a special case that the amounts shall carry interest
at the rate of 12% per annum. The interest rate is so fixed as no separate
compensation for the apathy shown on the party of the management. In view
thereof, the respondents, being the legal heirs of the workman will be entitled to
interest at the rate of 12% as follows:
(a) on Rs.3,50,000/- from 01.12.2005 to 17.11.2020 being Rs.6,28,341 /-
(b) On Rs.1,62,690/- from 01.12.2005 to 31.12.2020 being Rs.2,94,447/-
(c) on Rs. 38,423/- from 01.12.2005 to 24.11.2023 being Rs.82,900/-
10.5. The above said total sum of Rs.10,05,688/- is liable to be paid within
a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the web copy of the order,
failing which it shall carry further interest at the rate of 12% per annum from
today till the date of disbursement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
J. The Result:
11. In the result, the Writ Petitions are disposed of on the following terms,
11.1. The impugned orders dated 10.05.2017 made in PSA (Appeal)
No.1/2016 and dated 23.01.2023 made in PSA (Appeal) No.1/2022 shall stand
set aside;
11.2. The petitioner shall pay a total sum of Rs.10,05,688/- to the
respondents 4 to 6 in W.P.No.4617 of 2019, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of the website uploaded copy of this order, failing which the
amount shall carry further interest at the rate of 12% per annum from today;
11.3. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
24.02.2026
Jer
Neutral citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
To
1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour – 2
The Appellate Authority under Payment of
Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981
D.M.S. Compound
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II
(Appellate Authority under Payment of
Subsistence Allowance)
D.M.S. Compound
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Asst. Commissioner of Labour
(The Competent Authority under the Payment of
Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981)
Office of Dy.Commissioner of Labour
D.M.S. Compound
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
Jer
Pre-Delivery Order made in
Writ Petition Nos.4617 of 2019 and 30642 of 2024
24.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 04:05:51 pm )
