In a writ petition challenging an order granting subsistence allowance, the petitioner argued the respondent was a Manager and thus ineligible. The court dismissed the petition, noting designation alone does not determine eligibility and actual duties must be assessed.
No modification of Exhibit P6 order; grant of no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/3RD ASHADHA, 1938
W.P.(C).No.503 of 2008 (I)
PETITIONER(S):-
THE TRIVANDRUM SARVODAYA SANGH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMODAYA, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR SRI.S.S.BALU
RESPONDENT(S):-
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR. R2 BY ADVS. SMT.A.K.PREETHA
SRI.M.R.RAJESH.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
W.P.(C) No.503 OF 2008-I
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 8.6.2006 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
NIL.
Vku/-
[ true copy ]
K. Vinod Chandran, J
-------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.503 of 2008-I
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P6 order passed under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 [for brevity “the Act”]. The contention raised against Exhibit P6 is that the 2nd respondent was a Manager under the petitioner and, hence, was not entitled to the subsistence allowance under the Act for reason of the supervisory capacity held by her. The petitioner also places reliance on Shertallai Taluk Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner [1990 (2) KLT 175], to buttress his contention.
WP(C) No.503 of 2008 - 2 -
WP(C) No.503 of 2008
in the said order the 2nd respondent is described as an Assistant and there is also a specific direction to pay subsistence allowance as per rules.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
[ true copy ]
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the second respondent was entitled to subsistence allowance under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 despite allegations of supervisory capacity as a Manager.
Whether designation alone is sufficient to disqualify an employee from subsistence allowance or if the nature of duties must also be considered.
Whether the impugned order (Exhibit P6) passed allowing subsistence allowance should be modified.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shertallai Taluk Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Labour CommissionerReferred¶33
Shertallai Taluk Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner [1990 (2) KLT 175]
Prem Sagar v. S.V.Oil CompanyReferred¶35
Prem Sagar v. S.V.Oil Company [AIR 1965 SC 111] · Who else cites this
Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. The WorkmenReferred¶35
Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. The Workmen [1970 (3) SCC 248] · Who else cites this
Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai ShahReferred¶35
Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah [(2006) 6 SCC 548] · Who else cites this
S.K.Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd.Referred¶35
S.K.Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. [(1994) 3 SCC 510] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Trivandrum Sarvodaya Sangh
The Deputy Labour Commissioner & Secretary, State Advisory Contract Labour Board, Thiruvananthapuram
Smt.P.Prasanakumari
K.Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
