Dismissed

Sarala Devi v. Deputy Labour Commissioner

Kerala HC18 Oct 2016WP(C)/16034/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala must refer to extracts from the judgment. This writ petition challenging an order under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 directs the petitioner to pay subsistence allowance to an employee who was suspended and whose resignation acceptance is disputed. The Court refused interference because the petitioners failed to contest the statutory authority's decision b

What the court decided

AI extract

Sarala Devi Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/26TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 16034 of 2006 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. SARALA DEVI, FORMER SECRETARY, N.S.S.UNION COLLEGE, MANAKKAPADY, NORTH PARAVUR-683 511.

¶8

2. K.M.RAVINDRAN, FORMER PRINCIPAL,

¶9

N.S.S.UNION COLLEGE, MANAKKAPADY, NORTH PARAVUR-683 511.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

3. JOHNY K.R., KALATHIL HOUSE, KADASSERY PARAMBU, KIZHAKEPRAM, NORTH PARAVUR.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PAUL VARGHESE R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.JOLLY JOHN SRI.K.A.HASHIM

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

WP(C).No. 16034 of 2006 (H)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER DATED 23.03.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 10.04.2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 10.02.2003.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: THE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.05.2004.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE ENQUIRY REPORT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 14.02.2005.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN S.A.C.NO. 6/2004 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2005.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 16034 of 2006

¶34

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2016

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

1.This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order of the authority appointed under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, directing the petitioner to pay subsistence allowance to the third respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of that order.

¶37

2.The third respondent was an employee under the petitioners' institute. He was placed under suspension alleging theft of articles. A police complaint was also lodged. It is the case of the petitioners that the third respondent submitted Ext.P1 resignation on 23.03.2002 and the same was accepted by the management on 10.04.2002 as per Ext.P2. However, it is alleged that without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners that the authority passed Ext.P6 order, based on Ext.P4 report of the Deputy Labour Officer,

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 16034 of 2006

¶39

..2..

¶40

Kochi.

¶41

3.Learned counsel for the third respondent submits that Ext.P1 letter was not signed by him and it is a fabricated document and therefore, it cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that the Labour Officer directed enquiry and found that there are discrepancies in the signature. Therefore, it is argued that the third respondent is entitled for subsistence allowance.

¶42

4.This Court, while invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, is only concerned about the decision making process of the statutory authority. The statutory authority issued notice to the petitioners. The petitioners have no case that no notice was issued to them. It is categorically found in Ext.P6 impugned order that the petitioners failed to adduce any evidence. In view of the uncontroverted findings in the report, the statutory authority allowed the claim for subsistence allowance. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the statutory authority as

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 16034 of 2006

¶44

..3..

¶45

the petitioners failed to contest the matter before the statutory authority.

¶46

5.Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶47

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶48

bka/-

Sarala Devi v. Deputy Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sarala Devi v. Deputy Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.P Reghu Kumar Vs V.J Shamsudeen

Ambi. T Vs K. Lawrance

Reshina George Vs M.S Jaya

Lonappan Vs Mohanan

G.Sali Vs the Executive Engineer

M.Sudheesh Vs the President Cannanore Co-Op. Hospotal