MANAGEMENT COIMBATORE DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION COIMBATORE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in C.P. Nos. 628 and 868 of 1996, dated 23 December 1996, directing the petitioner to pay subsistence allowance of Rs. 10, 050 and Rs. 5, 520 respectively, the Management, District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union has filed the above writ petition.

(2.) THE necessary facts pertaining to the writ petition is stated hereunder : According to the petitioner, the second respondent was employed under the petitioner-union on casual basis as an attender. While employed as such, he had indulged in a misconduct, viz. attempting to cause loss to the petitioner-institution. Hence, through order, dated 17 February 1994, he was not continued to be employed. Subsequent to the order, dated 17 February 1994, the second respondent had made claims for subsistence allowance on the basis he was suspended from duty. THE Assistant Commissioner of Labour, before whom the claim was made, had also computed the amount payable to the second respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Subsistence Allowance Act. However, the second respondent was directed to report for duty on 24 August 1996. THE second respondent did not report for duty even after their specific letters, dated 24 August 1996 and 30 August 1996. By order, dated 1 October 1996, the second respondent was terminated from service of the petitioner on the ground of voluntary abandonment.

(3.) AFTER considering the relevant provisions from the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 particularly Ss. 3 to 5, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the claim under S. 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court is not maintainable. There is no dispute with regard to applicability of Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, and there is a machinery provided under the Act. As a matter of fact, the second respondent himself had approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour by invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act and obtained an order in his favour. For the subsequent period, instead of resorting to the same provision, the second respondent had approached the Labour Court under S. 33C(2) of the said Act. In the light of the specific provision, namely, Ss. 3 to 5 of Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act read with rule 5A of Payment of Subsistence Allowance Rules, the proper course and remedy for the second respondent-workman is to file appropriate petition before the authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act and the application filed under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court is not maintainable.