Disposed

The Manager v. Ebenezer.v

Madras HC6 Nov 2023WP(MD)/18344/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order denying subsistence allowance. The court held that a statutory appeal lies as an effective alternative remedy and declared the writ petition unmaintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as not maintainable due to existence of effective alternative remedy; liberty to file appeal granted.

The Manager Vs Ebenezer.v — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.18344 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.18344 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.15239 of 2023

¶8

The Manager,

¶9

M.P. 12, Highways Group Employees Co-operative Stores Limited, Manalaar Post, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.V.Ebenezer

¶12

2.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Collectorate, Dindigul.

¶13

3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Office of the Deputy Registrar,

¶14

L.D. Bank 1st Floor, Uthamapalayam Post and Taluk, Theni District.

¶15

4.The Manager, Bank of Baroda, Uthamapalayam Branch, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/5

¶18

W.P.(MD).No.18344 of 2023

¶19

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records relating to the Impugned Award / Order No:PSA 01/2021, dated 08.05.2023 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirugnanasambandam For R-1 : Mr.T.Ravichandran For R-2 & R-3 : Mr.T.Villavan Kothai Additional Government Pleader For R-4 : Mr.K.Muralidharan

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present writ petition has been filed by the Management challenging the order passed by the second respondent herein under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981.

¶23

According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Management, the petitioner was gainfully employed on a commission basis in Bank of Baroda during the period of suspension and hence, he is not entitled to receive subsistence allowance. He further contended that the petitioner was suspended on 29.05.2019 and he was dismissed from service on 23.12.2020. Between June

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/5

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.18344 of 2023

¶27

2019 and October 2019 subsistence allowance has already been paid. From November 2019 till December 2020, subsistence allowance was not paid on the ground that the first respondent herein was gainfully employed elsewhere. He further pointed out that they have examined the Manager of Bank of Baroda with whom the first respondent herein is said to have some business correspondance. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioner makes it clear that the writ petition is sought to be argued on merits.

¶28

A perusal of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Rules, 1981, Rule 5A points out that a statutory appeal lies as against the order passed by the original authority. In view of the effective alternative remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner seeks liberty to file the statutory appeal. Since the period of limitation has already crossed, he seeks extention of time.

¶29

In case if any appeal is presented on or before 06.12.2023 , the same

¶30

shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority without any reference to the period of limitation and the same may be decided on merits and in accordance with law.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

3/5

¶33

W.P.(MD).No.18344 of 2023

¶34

With the above said observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous

¶36

Petition stands closed.

¶37

06.11.2023

¶38

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR

¶39

¶40

1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Collectorate, Dindigul.

¶41

2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Office of the Deputy Registrar,

¶42

L.D. Bank 1st Floor, Uthamapalayam Post and Taluk, Theni District.

¶43

3.The Manager, Bank of Baroda, Uthamapalayam Branch, Theni District.

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

4/5

¶46

W.P.(MD).No.18344 of 2023

¶47

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶48

BTR

¶49

W.P.(MD).No.18344 of 2023

¶50

06.11.2023

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

5/5

The Manager v. Ebenezer.v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Ebenezer.v

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

Vasanthakumar.M Vs Union of India

Srinivasan.T Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Murugan.G Vs The Assistant Treasury officer

Gothandaraman Vs the Commissioner

Soundararajan .G Vs The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sarmila Vs The Director of School Education