Judgment :- J.B. Koshy, J. 1st respondent in this original petition was removed from service as charges issued against him were proved in a domestic enquiry. His removal from service was referred for adjudication. Industrial Tribunal found that the enquiry was not fair and proper. But, the management was allowed to adduce fresh evidence. Meanwhile, 1st respondent filed an application for subsistence allowance under the provisions of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. in view of the decision reported in Kerala State Cooperative Employees Association v. Labour Court Kozhikode (1984 (1) ILR Kerala 294). Labour Court awarded subsistence allowance as prayed for. This is challenged in this original petition. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act is not applicable in the instant case. Petitioner was holding managerial or administrative post and therefore Act is not applicable. Again, it was contended that the above Act is applicable only if a person is suspended pending enquiry. 1st respondent was never suspended pending enquiry while he was in service. 3. I am of the view that in any event after termination of service there is no employee-employer relationship and therefore the Subsistence Allowance Act will not be applicable. Ext. P1 order to pay subsistence allowance immediately before passing of the award for the period after removal from service merely because enquiry was set aside and misconduct was proved only before the tribunal is beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal. In the decision reported in 1984(1) ILR Kerala 294 this Court did not award subsistence allowance. It was held in that case that if the enquiry is held against the principles of natural justice so as to make it void, full wages can be awarded at the time of final award. Here, as the enquiry was set aside due to certain defects, evidence was adduced before the Tribunal and from the evidence, Tribunal found that removal of the 1st respondent from service was correct and therefore he is not entitled to any relief by a subsequent award (Ext. P2). At the time of final award Tribunal can grant part of full back wages considering the nature of misconducts and other circumstances; but before passing of the award in the absence of special statutory provision in a separate petition, Tribunal cannot award subsistence allowance under the Subsistence Allowance Act merely because enquiry was set aside. In Ext. P2). At the time of final award Tribunal can grant part of full back wages considering the nature of misconducts and other circumstances; but before passing of the award in the absence of special statutory provision in a separate petition, Tribunal cannot award subsistence allowance under the Subsistence Allowance Act merely because enquiry was set aside. In Ext. P2 award Tribunal also held that punishment will relate back to the date of original punishment. Now, the Supreme Court has clarified that the punishment order will relate back to the date of original punishment even though enquiry is set aside and misconduct is proved only before the Tribunal. In this connection, I refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in R. Thiruvirkolam v. Presiding Officer and another ((1997) 1 SCC 9) and Rambahu Vyanloji Kheragade v. 'Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation (1995 Supp. (4) SCC 157). Therefore, in view of these facts, Ext. P1 order is not sustainable. There is jurisdictional error on the part of the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, Ext. P1 is set aside and the original petition is allowed. 4. It is submitted by the workman that he has filed original petition against the final award. This will not prejudice his case and if he succeeds, he will get the benefits accordingly. Original Petition is allowed.