ORDER This writ petition by the employer of the respondent is for quashing the order it had suffered at the hands of the Principal District Judge at Hassan dated 4-4-2006 in E.A.T.M.A. No.1 of 2004. The appeal which the respondent had preferred against the petitioner-employer was against the order of dismissal/termination of his post by the employer on 2-1-2004. 2. The termination order dated 2-1-2004 itself has an history and it is the result of an enquiry that had begun on 26-6-2002; that even before the commencement of the enquiry, the employee has been asked to go on leave without salary and that matter had been made subject-matter of Appeal No. 3 of 2001 before the Authority by the employee and the employer had questioned the maintainability of said appeal and the authority, holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Questioning this order, the employer had approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 5208 of 2002. The writ petition ended with the order dated 6-1-2003 indicating therein that the learned Counsel for the employer-petitioner herein had in deference to the suggestion made by this Court submitted before the Court that the employee had been taken to duty. The copy of the order dated 6-1-2003 is at Annexure-E to the writ petition. So far as the salary for the period was concerned, the employee was given liberty to represent to the management and the management to consider the same etc. It appears, thereafter, petitioner management had settled salary of the employee upto end of March 2003 though it is complained by the respondent appearing in person that it was without the periodical increments. 3. Be that as it may, the facts not in dispute are that the enquiry which had been stalled till then, gained momentum and a report was submitted as on 6-5-2005 the copy of which is produced at Annexure-G to the writ petition. Thereafter, followed an order of termination dated 2-1-2004 the copy of which is furnished at Annexure-J. The copy of the enquiry report was furnished to employee on 11-11-2003 and it is thereafter that an order of termination was passed and against this order the employee filed appeal in E.A.T.M.A. No. 1 of 2004, urging several grounds. 4. Thereafter, followed an order of termination dated 2-1-2004 the copy of which is furnished at Annexure-J. The copy of the enquiry report was furnished to employee on 11-11-2003 and it is thereafter that an order of termination was passed and against this order the employee filed appeal in E.A.T.M.A. No. 1 of 2004, urging several grounds. 4. On consideration of the grounds raised and the defence taken by the management, the Tribunal framed the following points for its determination: (1) Whether the enquiry held is fair and proper? (2) Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside? (3) What order? 5. The Tribunal having concluded that enquiry itself was not fair and proper, particularly for the reasons that the employer had not paid the subsistence allowance to the employee during the period of enquiry, and following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case in 1991-I-CLR-431, the Tribunal was of the view that the enquiry was vitiated for non-payment of subsistence allowance to the employee during the enquiry and accordingly held that the termination order is not sustainable and consequently, allowed the appeal and directed the management not only to reinstate the employee into his post but also ruled that he is entitled to back wages and other allowances as per the rules. This order is questioned in this writ petition. 6. Notice having been issued to the respondent, the respondent has appeared in person. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioners. 8. While it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has proceeded on a very factually incorrect assumption, namely that the employee had not been paid subsistence allowance and only on such premise, setting aside the order of termination cannot be sustained and as the very premise on which the Tribunal proceeded is factually incorrect and therefore the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. 9. It is submitted that in fact the employee was not at all placed under suspension during the relevant period and if so, the question of paying subsistence allowance never arose. 10. 9. It is submitted that in fact the employee was not at all placed under suspension during the relevant period and if so, the question of paying subsistence allowance never arose. 10. The respondent who has appeared in person, on the other hand, asserts that though the employer did pay him the arrears of salary upto 31-3-2003, he has not been paid any other amount thereafter and that he has not been allowed to work in his post and he has been made to run from pillar to post; that ever since he has been facing hurdles in fighting litigation; that he has been virtually rendered useless once he was asked to go on leave way back in the year 2001 and all his future prospects have been ruined. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner is using the machinery of litigation as a stick to beat the employee which has resulted in an uneven battle; that the order passed by the Tribunal was not given effect to and therefore, he was forced to file Execution Petition No. 57 of 2006 before the Tribunal which is also not allowed to be completed by the management; that the petitioner is dragging the execution petition by seeking repeated adjournments and actually, the present writ petition is also filed with a mala fide intention to drag on the proceedings and to prevent the implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal; that several adjournments have been taken in the execution proceedings also; that the entire proceedings has resulted in considerable harassment to the respondent, who is without any work and without salary as of now. 11. The facts as noticed above indicate that the petitioner-employer itself had allowed the employee to assume his work but it is submitted by the employee that except paying him salary upto 2003, nothing else was paid to him by the employer though it was agreed by the management in the earlier Writ Petition No. 5208 of 2000; that the employee had been reinstated to service. 12. While there was no order of suspension, in effect it appears that the employer has not provided either salary or work to the employee and on and after 1-4-2003 salary was also not paid. 12. While there was no order of suspension, in effect it appears that the employer has not provided either salary or work to the employee and on and after 1-4-2003 salary was also not paid. Even on the facts noticed above, the enquiry has gone on during this period i.e., subsequent to 1-4-2003 and the enquiry report itself is dated 6-5-2003 and the copy of the same is furnished to employee on 11-11-2003 and the termination order is dated 2-1-2004. From these sequence of dates and developments, the enquiry can be said to be culminated only with the order on 2-1-2004. After 1-4-2003 it is obvious that the employer has not paid either the salary or any subsistence allowance to the employee. 13. It is no doubt true that the ruling of the Supreme Court on which the Tribunal placed reliance lays down the law regarding the effect of non-payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the enquiry and if suspended employee is not paid even the subsistence allowance, that can be urged as an instance of not affording adequate opportunity and therefore not a fair enquiry which can vitiate the enquiry, but if such is the situation even in respect of a suspended employee who can only look upto receipt of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, the principle would apply with greater force in the case of an employee who is not even placed under suspension during the period of enquiry but is not paid any salary at all. Even without placing the respondent under suspension, the petitioner has virtually brought about this situation and the respondent has suffered in such a situation. 14. In principle, the law laid down by the Supreme Court applies to the case of the petitioner also and for such reason, I find that the Tribunal, if had concluded that the enquiry was vitiated, no exception can be taken in respect of the finding of the Tribunal. 15. Though the matter had been adjourned on the last occasion to enable the management to settle the matter even as suggested by this Court, parties have not arrived at any mutually agreeable solution. 16. At this stage, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Counsel submitted that the management is ready and willing to revoke the order of termination and pay a sum of Rs. 16. At this stage, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Counsel submitted that the management is ready and willing to revoke the order of termination and pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in respect of all its financial dues to the employee and employee is at liberty to seek employment somewhere. 17. This offer put forth by the employer is outright rejected by the employee. What is stated by the respondent is that even by the payment of his arrears of salary in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal, the respondent is entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/- or around that amount and the offer of the management is not one fair to him etc. 18. This proposal obviously would not make much head way and the settlement did not come through as the parties are not willing to settle the litigation amicably. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition for quashing the order of the Tribunal does not have any merit and the order is not one required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 20. Though, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Counsel appearing for the employer has urged several other grounds, I find that it is not a fit case for interference with the findings of the Tribunal from any angle, particularly, having regard to the fact that petitioner-institution appears to be more interested in harassing the respondent-employee than for espousing any bona fide grievance. 21. I find no need to consider any other grounds urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and therefore, I do not find any reasons or justification to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 22. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed awarding the cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the petitioner payable in favour of the respondent. If the cost is not paid by the petitioner within four weeks from today, it is open to the employee to sue out for execution for recovery of the amount from the petitioner and for such purpose, the amount can also claimed before the Tribunal in the pending execution case itself.