GUPTA Vs. JAGANNADHDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the Branch Manager of M/s Orient Distributors, Cochin, and the Managing partner of the said concern. They have questioned the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court who allowed the writ petition to quash Ext. P3 order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam, on an application filed by the 1st respondent under S.4 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. The Deputy Labour Commissioner had dismissed the application on the ground that the conditions and circumstances which had to be established for the grant of the application were not satisfied; that there was no "suspension" as defined in the Act, which alone will justify the making of the application, and therefore the same was not maintainable. The learned Judge took the view that the definition of the term "suspension" under the Act was quite wide and comprehensive, that the same was attracted, and that the conditions necessary for the award of subsistence allowance were satisfied. In the result, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed Ext. P3 and directed the Deputy Labour Commissioner to dispose of Ext. P1 application afresh in accordance with law.

(2.) The 1st respondent was a Sales Assistant under the appellants. He was first transferred to the appellants branch on 3rd June 1974 to join at the branch on 1st July 1974. He did not obey the transfer or join at the branch. He was therefore relieved from his work at the Head Office and asked to join at Madras by an order dated 26th November 1974. This order, again, was not complied with. The 1st respondent neither joined at Madras nor worked in the appellants' office in Cochin. For this, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him, and enquiry was conducted by an Advocate, who, on 2nd July 1975, reported finding the 1st respondent guilty of the charges. Thereupon, on 30th July 1975, the 1st respondent filed Ext. P1 application under S.4 of the Act, for payment of subsistence allowance, which has given rise to the proceedings sketched.

(3.) S.2 clause (f) of the Act defines the word 'suspension' as follows; "(f) 'suspension' means an interim decision of an employer as a result of which an employee is debarred temporarily from attending his office and performing his functions in the establishment where he is employed, such restriction being imposed on the employee on the ground either that a disciplinary proceeding has already been, or is shortly to be, instituted against him or that a criminal proceeding in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him is under investigation or trial;"