IRITTY RANGE KALLUCHETHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. Challenge in the O.P. invoking the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is against Ext. P3 order passed by the Labour Court, Kannur in a claim petition filed by the respondent under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Respondent, admittedly, was a workman of the society. He was suspended from service with effect from 03.08.2008 and, later, dismissed from service after a domestic enquiry, for serious misconduct, allegedly, proved against him. His termination from service by dismissal was by order dated 16.12.2009. Claim petition under S. 33C(2) of the Act was moved by petitioner after his dismissal from service. He claimed subsistence allowance for the period from 8.8.2008 to 7.12.2009 at the rate of 50% for the first three months, at 75% for the next three months and full wages for the remaining period. He claimed a total sum of Rs. 84,075/- as amount due as subsistence allowance from his employer/petitioner Society. Claim was resisted by the Society contending that the order of suspension has merged with the order of dismissal of the employee and therefore the dispute over his entitlement of subsistence allowance is a matter to be adjudicated by a reference under S. 10 of the Act or in a proceeding before the Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Another challenge was also raised by the Society that he is an agriculturist possessing a rubber plantation and other agricultural lands of large extent from which he obtained more than sufficient income for sustenance. He was engaged in rubber tapping and other agricultural work during the period of suspension and therefore he was not entitled to subsistence allowance was the further case of the employer to resist the claims.

(2.) The Labour Court found the challenges raised against the entitlement of claimant unsustainable. Accepting the case of the workman and holding that he is entitled to claim subsistence allowance during the period he was placed under suspension before his dismissal from service the claim canvassed by him was allowed under Ext. P3 order. Correctness and legality of Ext. P3 order is impeached in this petition.

(3.) I heard learned counsel on both sides.