Dismissed

The Management, v. the Appellate Authority

Madras HC23 Sept 2025WP(MD)/2071/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Management challenged appellate orders confirming payment of full subsistence allowance to a suspended employee even after superannuation, for 2009–2013. Noting an earlier identical claim had been upheld by this Court and the Division Bench, and that the employee had died, the Court impleaded his legal heirs suo motu and dismissed the petition, directing payment within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Legal heirs of the deceased employee impleaded; Management directed to pay subsistence allowance ordered by respondents 1 and 2 to the legal heirs within eight weeks.

The Management, Vs the Appellate Authority — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2071 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2071 of 2019 and WMP(MD)No.1666 of 2019

¶7

The Management, Tamil Nadu Co-op. Marketing Federation Ltd., Rep. by its Secretary, No.91, St. Mary's Road, Chennai – 600 018.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

The Appellate Authority Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act 1981 The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai No.142-1 Sundaram Theatre Road, K.K.Nagar, Madurai – 625 020.

¶11

The Authority under the Tamilnadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance At 1981, The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

¶12

Madurai – 625 020.

¶13

V.Jayaraj (died)

¶14

J.Punniyavathi

¶15

J.Ajitha

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.2071 of 2019

¶19

6. J.Cuba Queen

¶20

7. J.Valantina

¶21

(R4 to R7, who are the legal heirs of the deceased 3^rd respondent, are suo motu impleaded by order dated 23.09.2025)

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the 1^st respondent dated 02.05.2018 passed in P.S.A.A.No.11/2017 to 15/2017 confirming the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 20.04.2016 in Subsistence Allowance Case No. 8/2010, 1/2011, 15/2011, 12/2012 and 2/2013 and quash the same and further allow the petitioner to recover the subsistence allowance from the 3^rd respondent which he had already received without entitlement within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.Ram Sundar Vijaya Raj For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Vinodh, Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.S.Arunachalam

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This writ petition has been filed by the Management as against the order passed by the 1^st respondent dated 02.05.2018 passed in P.S.A.A.Nos. 11/2017 to 15/2017 confirming the order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 20.04.2016 in Subsistence Allowance Case No.8/2010, 1/2011, 15/2011, 12/2012 and 2/2013, filed by the 3^rd respondent.

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.2071 of 2019

¶30

The 3^rd respondent employee was suspended by the Management on certain allegations and a criminal case was also registered as against him. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2005. The disciplinary proceedings was not concluded. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent was paid 50% of subsistence allowance. The 3^rd respondent has approached the second respondent/the Authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, seeking subsistence allowance for the period from 30.06.2005 to 19.08.2007 in Subsistence Allowance Case in Nos.13/2007, 15/2007 and 19/2007 and the same were allowed by the second respondent, by order dated 23.05.2008. Aggrieved over the same, the Management preferred an appeal before the first respondent/Appellate Authority in PSA No.2/2019. The first respondent/the Appellate Authority, by order dated 17.08.2009, dismissed the appeal filed by the Management confirming the order passed by the original authority that the Management is liable to pay 100% of wages as subsistence allowance, even after he attained the age of superannuation. Aggrieved over the same, the Management has filed a writ petition before this Court in WP.(MD)No.13187 of 2009 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 15.10.2010 and a writ appeal filed by the Management in W.A. (MD)No.917 of 2012 was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.2071 of 2019

¶34

on 10.03.2023, recording the submission of the Management that the subsistence allowance as directed by the respondents 1 and 2 were paid to the 3^rd respondent. This writ petition has also been filed as against the similar order passed by the 1^st respondent in P.S.A.A.Nos.11/2017 to 15/2017, dated 02.05.2018, confirming the order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 20.04.2016 in Subsistence Allowance Case No.8/2010, 1/2011, 15/2011, 12/2012 and 2/2013, allowing the claim petitions filed by the 3^rd respondent seeking subsistence allowance for the period from 20.08.2009 to 30.04.2013. In view of the earlier order passed by this Court, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

The learned counsel on either side submits that the 3^rd respondent employee died. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent has also filed a memo along with the legal heir certificate.

¶36

This issue is pending from the year 2018 on the claim of the 3^rd respondent for subsistence allowance that too for the period from the year 2009 to 2013. The legal heir certificate of the 3^rd respondent is also placed before this Court. Any further delay would certainly affect the rights of the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, this Court suo motu impleads the legal heirs of

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.2071 of 2019

¶40

the 3^rd respondent as parties to this writ petition.

¶41

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the

¶42

petitioner Management to pay the subsistence allowance, as ordered by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, to the legal heirs of the 3^rd respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

23.09.2025

¶44

NCC : Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ogy

¶45

¶46

The Appellate Authority Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act 1981 The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai No.142-1 Sundaram Theatre Road, K.K.Nagar, Madurai – 625 020.

¶47

The Authority under the Tamilnadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance At 1981,

¶48

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Madurai – 625 020.

¶49

5/6

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.(MD)No.2071 of 2019

¶52

B.PUGALENDHI,J.

¶53

ogy

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.2071 of 2019

¶55

23.09.2025

¶56

6/6

¶57

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

The Management, v. the Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management, v. the Appellate Authority

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

The Management, Vs Chidambaram.Kr

M.Jayakumar Vs Managing Director and CEO

The Management Vs the Presiding Officer

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs the Presiding Officer

S.Gurusamy Vs The Appellate Authority

M.Gurusamy, Vs the Appellate Authority Cum