Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, who is a conductor in the respondent Corporation, is seeking to challenge the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the General Manager, wherein by which, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that he was responsible for the death of a school student, who fell down from the rear footboard and the left rear wheel ran over him. It was felt that his temporary suspension was essential until further orders. It was also informed that during the suspension period, the petitioner shall not go away from the headquarters of the Branch, namely, Gingee, without the prior permission of the Branch Manager. 2. Subsequent to the order of suspension, the petitioner sent representations dated 6.2.2012 and 20.8.2012, wherein by which, he has stated that he has not been paid any subsistence allowance even though the order of suspension was only pending further orders and it was indicated that he shall not go away from the headquarters without prior permission of the General Manager. Since the petitioner did not get any reply, the writ petition came to be filed challenging the order of suspension and for a direction to pay subsistence allowance as in the order of suspension which is in force. 3. When the matter came up on 13.9,.2012, the Standing counsel for the respondent Corporation was directed to take notice. Accordingly, Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan, appears for the respondent. On behalf of the respondent, a counter affidavit dated 28.1.2012 was filed. 4. A preliminary objection was taken stating that in respect of payment of subsistence allowance the claim will have to be made as per the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 43/81). The petitioner is having a speedy, efficacious and alternative remedy under the said law. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. But however, it was curiously stated that the petitioner was engaged as a conductor against the reserve conductors and leave vacancy and as such, he cannot perform duty continuously for 240 days in a calendar year and 480 days in two calendar years. 6. It was admitted that the petitioner was stopped from duty with effect from 23.12.2011. 5. But however, it was curiously stated that the petitioner was engaged as a conductor against the reserve conductors and leave vacancy and as such, he cannot perform duty continuously for 240 days in a calendar year and 480 days in two calendar years. 6. It was admitted that the petitioner was stopped from duty with effect from 23.12.2011. It was alleged that the petitioner was not suspended from duty; he was only disengaged from duty since he was a reserve crew and hence he cannot claim subsistence allowance from the date on which he was denied employment. 7. The above stand of the respondent goes diametrically opposite to the earlier stand that the petitioner has remedy under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsis5ance Allowance Act, 1981. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether persons like the petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance, pending further orders on the said suspension. 8. Hence, it is necessary to see the real import of the order dated 23.12.2011. The order clearly states that the petitioner's temporary suspension was necessary in view of the report of the Branch Manager and therefore, pending further orders, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The second paragraph of the order also clearly says that the petitioner shall not go away from the headquarters of the Branch, namely, Chengi, without permission of the Branch Manager. Therefore it is undoubtedly an order of suspension pending further orders and it is too late on the part f the respondent to contend to the contrary. 9. The averment made in paragraph No.4 of the counter that the petitioner was not suspended from duty is not stand to the reasons and it goes diametrically opposite to the order passed by the respondent. Once the petitioner is under suspension, merely because he is stated to be a reserve conductor, whether he can be denied subsistence allowance. 10. The definition of the term 'employee' under S.2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to the 'Act' for short) clearly shows that it means any person employed in, or connected with the work or activities of an establishment to do any skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical, clerical or any kind of work or activities for hire or reward. The said definition excludes engaging persons employed in a managerial or administrative capacity and those in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding three thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem. 11. The petitioner did not come within the expected category under Section 2(a) of the Act, as he certainly a person employed in connection with the work of the establishment. 12. The respondent establishment is also covered by the provisions of the Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 12A of the said Act contemplates that in the absence of any Standing Order being framed, the model standing order framed by the State Government will apply to the industrial establishment. The Model Standing order (1) provides classification of workmen, which includes permanent, probationers, temporary, badlis, casual, seasonal and apprentices and therefore, it is too late in the day on the part of the respondent to contend that the petitioner is not a workman in terms of classification provided in the Model Standing Order, which is also a similar standing order in the respondent establishment and once a person comes within the classification of workmen, and in the absence of his coming under the exceptional category, is expected to be paid subsistence allowance. 13. In fact, the Industrial Employment Standing Order, 1946, came to be amended and Section 10A was introduced by the Parliament by amending Act 18/1982 with effect from 17.5.1982. Under Section 10A of the IESO Act, if a workman is suspended by the employer, pending investigation or inquiry into complaints or charges of misconduct against him, he is entitled for the payment of subsistence allowance initially at the rate of 50% and thereafter at the rate of 75% if there is delay in conducting disciplinary action. 14. Even under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act,1981, the term 'suspension' is defined under Section 2(g) of the Act, which means an interim decision of an employer, as a result of which an employee is debarred temporarily from attending to his office and performing his functions in the establishment on the ground that an enquiry is contemplated or pending or a compliant of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial or the complaint has not been finally disposed of. 15. 15. In the present case not only the impugned order substantially uses the term 'suspension until further orders' and it also says that 'the petitioner should not go away from the headquarters, without the permission of the Branch Manager', which clearly shows that the relationship of master and servant continues and it has not been severed by the impugned order though a contrary stand is now taken in paragraph No.4 of the counter. 16. Even assuming, the argument of the respondent is accepted that the petitioner was disengaged from the duty as he was a reserve crew, since the order itself shows that it is based upon a misconduct, namely, that the petitioner was negligent, being responsible for the death of a school student due to his negligent, then it is incumbent upon the respondent to hold an enquiry before terminating his service. 17. Model Standing Order 17 (a similar provision applies in the Certified Standing Order), contemplates conducting of an enquiry by the employer in case of a suspension and on a allegation of misconduct. In this case, the same has not been done. 18. The last argument that the workman must invoke the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, is concerned, no doubt, under Section 4 of the said Act, the authorities have been constituted for recovering the amount from the employer. 19. In this case, the respondent is a statutory Corporation and they are bound to obey the law, and therefore, there is no use in telling the petitioner that he must move the authorities, especially when the respondent has raised the question of entitlement of the petitioner in getting allowance. It is only in case where there is a dispute regarding payment of subsistence allowance, the authority can go into the said issue. Since the respondent has raised the very entitlement of the petitioner, this Court is entitled to render finding on the said issue and consequentially, the petitioner, who was under suspension, is entitled for payment of subsistence allowance on the basis of the rates provided under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 43/81. Since it is only a subsistence allowance, the person who is paid on a low wage must go before the authority and claim subsistence allowance on a periodical basis. 20. Since it is only a subsistence allowance, the person who is paid on a low wage must go before the authority and claim subsistence allowance on a periodical basis. 20. In this case, the petitioner was employed as a Conductor with effect from 20.10.2008 and he has worked till the date of suspension, namely, on 23.12.2011, for a period of three years and it is immaterial whether he has completed 480 days or not. Since the respondent had chosen to suspend the petitioner, he is entitled for payment of subsistence allowance. 21. Hence, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner as per the rates provided under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, without driving the petitioner to any other forum. Inasmuch as it is only a payment of subsistence allowance, it also requires certain expeditious on the part of the respondent and this order shall be implemented within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.