Allowed

Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2023WP/15733/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition and quashed an order directing the petitioner to pay 75% subsistence allowance. The court held that the delay in the inquiry was due to the workmen's absence, not the petitioner, making the reduction clause inapplicable. The petitioner is thus liable for the higher allowance rate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 30.1.2019 was quashed.

Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 15733 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 15733 OF 2019 (L-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. CHAMUNDESWARI SUGARS LIMITED (A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI K.R. NACHIAPPAN REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.88/5 RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE-560 025 HAVING ITS FACTORY AT: K.M. DODDI, BHARTHINAGARA, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER CUM AUTHORITY UNDER KARNATAKA PAYMENT OF SUBSISTANCE ALLOWANCE ACT, 1988 MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE-570 001.

¶12

SRI C. MADHU S/O SRI CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O MANNIGERE VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 422. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1/STATE; R2 - SERVED)

¶13

¶14

WP No. 15733 of 2019

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.1.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN PETITION VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO AND ETC.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.01.2019, passed by the 1st respondent, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,500/- towards the subsistence allowance @ 75% of the wages for the period after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension stating that the delay in conducting enquiry is attributable to the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order sheet maintained by the Enquiry Officer at Annexure-G indicates that, the delay in completing the enquiry was solely attributable to the workmen and not the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is contrary to Clause B of Section 10(a) (1) of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946.

¶20

Respondent No.2 though served with notice has not chosen to appear in person or through the counsel.

¶21

Learned AGA for the respondent-State justifies the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent.

¶22

¶23

WP No. 15733 of 2019

¶24

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

The 2nd respondent was suspended from the service pending enquiry on 28.08.2017 at Annexure-E and he was entitled to 75% of the wages towards subsistence allowance for a period of 180 days from the date of suspension.

¶26

Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1988, specifies that, an employee who was suspended from services is entitled for 50% of the wages for a period of 90 days from the date of suspension and @ 75% from the 91st day to 180 days from the date of suspension and if, suspension is for a period of more than 180 days, the employee is entitled for 90% of the wages as subsistence allowance, and the 3rd proviso to the said section specifies that if there is a delay beyond 90 days in completing the enquiry for the reasons directly attributable to the employee, the subsistence allowance for a period exceeding 90 days is to be reduced to 1/2 of such wages which he was drawing immediately before his suspension.

¶27

It is well settled law that payment under Subsistence Allowances Act, 1988 is more beneficial to the workmen than under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and the workmen is entitled to the said benefits.

¶28

¶29

WP No. 15733 of 2019

¶30

Perusal of the order sheet at Annexure-G maintained by the Enquiry Officer indicates that the workmen had repeatedly remained absent due to which the enquiry was protracted which connotes that the delay cannot be attributable to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent holding that the delay in completing the enquiry was solely attributable to the petitioner is not sustainable in law.

¶31

10. Accordingly, I pass the following

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶34

ii) Impugned order dated 30.1.2019 passed by the 1st respondent at Annexure-A is hereby quashed and consequently, the application filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 4 of the Act also stands dismissed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

BKM

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 106

Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamalesh Reddy Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri. Pradeep Kumar. H. S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Thimmegowda Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

R. Parvathamma Vs Chief Engineer

Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner