MANAGEMENT OF AUROFOOD PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised by the employer/appellant is as to whether the learned single Judge of this Court was right in directing the employer to pay subsistence allowance to the dismissed workman during the pendency of the proceeding before the Labour Court. The workman Sukumaran was dismissed on 1.7.1988 without holding an enquiry into the misconduct alleged against him. A reference regarding the validity of that termination was made to the Labour Court, Cuddalore on 25.11.1989. The employer in the counter statement filed before that Court stated, inter alia, that it would lead evidence to prove the alleged misconduct. The Court without providing opportunity to the employer to lead evidence held that the termination of this workman was not justified.

(2.) The employer's writ petition challenging that order of the Labour Court has been allowed and the matter remitted back to that Court with a direction to permit the employer as also the workman to substantiate their respective cases. The learned single Judge, while so allowing the employer's petition has also directed it to pay subsistence allowance to the workman as per law from the date of his suspension and to settle the arrears of subsistence allowance payable to the workman within thirty days. That order was made on 13.12.2000. The employee being aggrieved by that direction is in appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted by counsel that the direction given for payment of subsistence allowance is one which cannot be sustained in law. It was pointed out that the workman had not applied to the Labour Court for interim relief under Section 10 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act; that a case where no enquiry was held is on par with a case where the enquiry held is found to be defective; that the employer had a right to adduce evidence even though it had not held an enquiry prior to the date of termination; that the workman having ceased to be a workman of the employer on the date of termination the employer-employee relationship had been severed, and there was therefore no question of treating the employee as being under suspension. Subsistence allowance therefore, according to the submission, was not payable by the employer.