6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that once an employee is suspended, it is his fundamental right to be paid subsistence allowance for subsistence. However, the petitioner not only paid the subsistence allowance, but seriously agitated the matter before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and then before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Even after both the authorities found in favour of the first respondent and ordered the grant of subsistence allowance, they filed these writ petitions, challenging the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. These continuous litigation caused the delay of filing the subsistence allowance applications. The issue with regard to the delay in filing the subsistence allowance applications was taken up by the petitioner before the authorities. The authorities after having found that the reason stated by the first respondent in all these writ petitions for the delay in filing the applications was a genuine, accepted the reason and condoned the delay. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to raise the issue of delay aspect now. He further submitted that Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, defines the term 'employee'. The first respondents, who were employed as Supervisors were doing every other work in a TASMAC Shop. They were also paying less than Rs.3,500/-. They are squarely covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 198. He also pressed into service the order passed in W.P.Nos.24146 and 24394 of 2009, to buttress the claim of entitlement of subsistence allowance to the TASMAC employees, the first respondent, in particular in these cases.
