CHACKO Vs. VYTHIRI PLANTATIONS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was working as an Assistant Tea Maker in the Tea Factory at Thalamala Estate owned by the third respondent. His services were terminated on 23.7.1989. The said termination was challenged in I.D. 34 of 1990 on the file of the Labour Court, Kannur. Later it was established that the petitioner is a workman under the industrial establishment as per the decision in WA No. 605 of 1993. As per the provisions of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance from the third respondent. He was suspended from service from 16.6.1988 to 23.9.1989. As per the provisions of the Act, he was not awarded subsistence allowance. He was awarded subsistence allowance only in October, 1993 for the period from 16.6.1988 to 31.12.1988 and denied subsistence allowance for the subsequent period from 1.1.1989 to 23.9.1989. Petitioner filed application for the subsistence allowance for the period from 1.1.1989 to 30.4.1989 and another application from May, 1989 to September, 1989. Petitioners applications were later transferred to the first respondent. The first respondent allowed the applications, under Ext. P1. The first respondent directed the third respondent to pay subsistence allowance within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. Still, the third respondent refused to make payment till 25.11.1994. Petitioner then filed O.P. No. 16328 of 1994 for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to take necessary steps with the second respondent for realisation of Rs. 13,730/- towards subsistence allowance with interest and also to direct the first respondent to take penal action against the fourth respondent and for other reliefs.

(2.) During the pendency of that O.P., an amount of Rs. 13,730/- was paid by way of cheque on 25.11.1994. Petitioner has now filed this O.P. for a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P4 order passed by the first respondent and to declare that he is entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the subsistence allowance due to him from the third respondent.

(3.) The third respondent entered appearance through Advocate Shri. E.R. Venkiteswaran. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance. It is also proved by the petitioner that the subsistence allowance was not paid in time and the same was paid only after five years from the date on which it had become due. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Philip Mathew invited my attention to the decision in Chennamangalam Nair Samajam v. Sarada, 1993 (1) KLT 142 . It was a case where an employee of a charitable society was placed under suspension and later she was removed from service. She then filed appeal. That appeal was allowed setting aside the dismissal order. She then claimed wages under the Minimum Wages Act, bonus, subsistence allowance and interest. The Labour Court granted an award for realisation of subsistence allowance with 12% interest. That award was challenged before this Court. This Court held that the award of interest by the Labour Court is legal. The Court held as follows: