Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3413 (MAD)

P. R. Periyasamy v. Joint Commissioner of Labour

2014-09-17

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner was employed as a Area Manager with the second respondent from 16.09.1999. He was suspended from service by an order dated 18.08.2006. According to the second respondent, the suspension was revoked by an order dated 30.09.2006. It is also the case of the second respondent that subsistence allowance was paid from 19.08.2006 to 30.09.2006. After the revocation of suspension order, the petitioner did not report for duty. But it is the case of the petitioner, that he was orally terminated from service on 05.10.2006. 3. The petitioner filed an application under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act in P.S.A.No.2 of 2010 claiming subsistence allowance from 05.10.2006 to 30.04.2009 for Rs.3,45,150/- The authority dismissed the application in P.S.A.No.2 of 2010 on 30.06.2011. The order of the authority was on the basis that once the first respondent passed an order setting aside the oral termination, the petitioner cannot claim subsistence allowance for the period after 05.10.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal in A.P.S.A.No.10 of 2011 before the first respondent against the order dated 30.06.2011. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.1 of 2012 in A.P.S.A.No.10 of 2011 to let in evidence in the appeal to mark the order of the first respondent dated 10.12.2008 in T.N.S.E.Case No.3 of 2008, as an exhibit on his side. The first respondent passed an order dated 27.03.2012 dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2012 in A.P.S.A.No.10 of 2011. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent Management has submitted that the petitioner has claimed subsistence allowance after the order dated 10.12.2008 of the first respondent in T.N.S.E.Case No.3 of 2008 setting aside the oral termination from 05.10.2006 and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the original authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, dismissing the claim for subsistence allowance after 05.10.2006. According to the learned counsel, there was no question of payment of subsistence allowance after 05.10.2006, in view of the order dated 10.12.2008 in T.N.S.E.Case No.3 of 2008. Even otherwise, if it was taken as termination from 05.10.2006, for argument sake, the claim for subsistence allowance is not maintainable. According to the learned counsel, there was no question of payment of subsistence allowance after 05.10.2006, in view of the order dated 10.12.2008 in T.N.S.E.Case No.3 of 2008. Even otherwise, if it was taken as termination from 05.10.2006, for argument sake, the claim for subsistence allowance is not maintainable. The learned counsel has vehemently contended that the order of the original authority holding that the claim for subsistence allowance for the period from 05.10.2006 does not suffer from any infirmity. However, I am not going into the said issue since A.P.S.A.No.10 of 2011 is pending before the first respondent. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is simple and that the order dated 10.12.2008 in T.N.S.E. Case No.3 of 2008 shall be marked in A.P.S.A.No.10 of 2011 as an exhibit. 7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the second respondent has submitted that the order dated 10.12.2008 in T.N.S.E.Case No.3 of 2008 will be only against the petitioner, as far as his claim for subsistence allowance is concerned. I am not expressing any opinion on this argument. The learned counsel for the second respondent has not made any objection for marking the document dated 10.12.2008 in T.N.S.E.Case No. 3 of 2008 since the same could not advance the case of the petitioner and also it is only the order passed in the statutory appeal under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act. 8. In view of the stand taken by the second respondent, the writ petition stands allowed and the order dated 27.03.2012 in I.A.No.1 of 2012 in A.P.S.A.No.10 of 2011 stands set aside and the first respondent is directed to mark the order dated 10.12.2008 in T.N.S.E.Case No. 3 of 2008 as an exhibit, on the side of the petitioner, who is appellant in A.P.S.A.No.10 of 2011. 9. It is made clear that all the issues, including the issue as to the maintainability of the claim for subsistence allowance for the period from 05.10.2006 in view of the order dated 10.12.2008 in T.N.S.E.Case No.3 of 2008, are left open for decision on merits by the first respondent in A.P.S.A.No.10 of 2011. The first respondent is further directed to dispose of A.P.S.A.No.10 of 2011 on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.