Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the first respondent dated 10.7.1987 in P.S.A.No.18 of 1937. 2. The Management has filed this writ petition. The second respondent was an employee working as a Junior Assistant in the petitioner concern at Tiruchirapalli. He was kept under suspension from 8.5.1985. After the receipt of the explanation form the second respondent, an enquiry was conducted on 27.7. 1985. The second respondent took adjournments on several occasions. The enquiry was adjourned to 31.8.1985. In the mean time, the second respondent filed O.S. No.1682 of 1985 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Tiruchirapalli and obtained an order of interim injunction in LA. No. 1284 of 1985 on 21.10.1985 restraining the petitioner from conducting the domestic enquiry. After obtaining an orderof injunction the second respondent filed P.S.A. No.18 of 1987 claiming the subsistence allowance for the period from 22.4.1986 to 30.4.1987. In the first instance, the first respondent awarded a sum of Rs.2,281.64 on 10.7.1987. Secondly, on 27.7.1987 the first respondent has also awarded another asum of Rs.4,563.29 as subsistence allowance. 3. No counter filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as the second respondent filed a suit O.S. No. 1682 of 1985 on the file of District Munsifs Court, Tiruchirapalli and obtained an order of interim injunction in LA. No.1284 of 1985 on 21.10.1985 restraining the petitioner management from proceeding further with the enquiry he is not eligible for the subsistence allowance. The domestic enquiry was finally adjourned on 31.8.1985. Without attending the enquiry, the second respondent filed O.S. No.1682 of 1985, on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Tiruchirapalli and has obtained an order of injunction in LA. No.1284 of 1985 on 21.10.1985, and the same is pending. Thereafter the second respondent filed P.S.A. No.18 of 1987, for subsistence allowance for the period from 22.4.1986 to 30.4.1987. 5. As per Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act XLIII of 1981) hereinafter referred to as “the Act” an employee placed under suspension, is entitled to receive 50% of the subsistence allowance for first ninety days of suspension. For the second period of 90 days he is also entitled for 75% of the subsistence allowance. For the second period of 90 days he is also entitled for 75% of the subsistence allowance. After the expiry of 180 days he will be entitled to receive wages, in full, which he was drawing immediately before his suspension. There are three provisos. The first proviso is with reference to the second period of ninety days. The second proviso relates to 2nd period i.e., after the expiry of ninety days. The third proviso to Sec.3 of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act reads as follows: “Provided also that where the enquiry or criminal proceedings 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 per centum of the wages, which the employee was drawing immediately before his suspension.” 6. The first respondent has relied upon the 3rd proviso while ordering fifty per cent of wages, even though the period of 180 days expired on 22.4.1986. The first respondent the Labour Court, has simply relied on the earlier orders passed by it in P.S.A. No.44 of 1986. That proviso applies only to the case where the enquiry is prolonged by the employer; but when the enquiry is stalled at the instance of the employee, the enquiry cannot be said to be prolonged. Further the stalled period cannot be taken into consideration for the third proviso contained in Sec.3 of the Act. 7. In The Special Officer, Morangam Agricultural Service Co-operative Societies Limited, Tiruchengode, Salem District v. The Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act (Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem) and others Tiruchengode, Salem District v. The Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act (Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem) and others Tiruchengode, Salem District v. The Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act (Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem) and others (1992)1 MLJ. 35 S.Ramalingam, J. was taken a similar view that “the proviso would not apply to a circumstance or situation where the employee resorts to a civil suit and the civil suit is kept pending for an inordinate time.” I fully agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge of this court. 35 S.Ramalingam, J. was taken a similar view that “the proviso would not apply to a circumstance or situation where the employee resorts to a civil suit and the civil suit is kept pending for an inordinate time.” I fully agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge of this court. Since the injunction granted in I.A.No.l284 of 1985 inO.S.No.1682 of 1985 has been in force from 21.10.1985, the second respondent is not entitled to subsistence allowance for the period from 22.4.1986 to 30.4.1987. Hence this writ petition is allowed and the order of the first respondent is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.