K C ANANDAN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are admittedly employees of IMPCOPS Limited at Chennai 41. THEy were placed under suspension. THE 2nd respondent Medical Practitioners' Cooperative Society is governed by the provisions of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. THE petitioners were placed under suspension. In these Writ Petitions, they have challenged an order of the Secretary incharge dated 16.12.2011 signed on 17.12.2011, in which the petitioners were informed that the management pursuant to the suspension are proposing to appoint an enquiry officer. It is also stated that the for the purpose of extending subsistence allowance, it is unnecessary to raise any dispute and if the petitioners signed the register kept at the gate, they will be paid subsistence allowance as per law.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioners was that subsequent to the said order, an enquiry officer has been appointed. THE enquiry officer after listing out the charges informed the petitioners that the enquiry will be conducted on the next adjourned date and in case the petitioners fail to participate in the enquiry, the proceedings are likely to proceed in the absence of the petitioners. Challenging these two communications, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions. THE prayer of the petitioners was that the proceedings cannot go on since the proceedings pending before the Payment of Subsistence Allowance is to be completed and they also request for replacement of the enquiry officer.

(3.) EVEN subsequent to the Mariappan's case, an attempt was raised to contend that non-payment of subsistence allowance would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore a Writ Petition will lie. The view taken by a learned Judge in Marappan's case was referred for determination by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in T.K.Ananda Sayanan vs. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vellore Region, Vellore and another reported in 2007 (5) MLJ 637. In paragraph 16 of the said judgment, the Full Bench observed as follows: