MANAGEMENT TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL CO OP RUBBERISED COIR PRODUCTS LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the petitioner management, the third respondent was engaged as a supervisor. As against his suspension order, the said employee moved the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, (TN Act 43/81) claiming Subsistence Allowance, which was not paid to him.

(2.) As he was placed under suspension pending an enquiry, the competent authority by his order dated July 16, 2003 made in P.S.A. No. 4 of 2003, computed the subsistence allowance, as per the provisions of the Act. The amount due to the petitioner for the period from May 21, 2002 to till November 30, 2002 came to a sum of Rs. 18,131/-. Before the first respondent, a contention was raised by the petitioner that he is not an "employer" so as to come within the definition of Section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act, 43 of 1981. A reading of the said Section shows that the definition, therein borrows the definition of the term "Workman" found in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Even under Section 2(3)(e)(j) the term "industry" is also borrowed from the term "industry" found in Section 2(i) of the I.D. Act. It is a case of the legislation by incorporation. Therefore, if a person is a "Workman" for the purpose of I.D., Act, he is also a workman for the purpose of TN Act 43/81. In the present case, the third respondent was paid lay-off compensation under Section 25-C of the I.D. Act. Therefore, he is deemed to be an "employee" under TN Act 4 3/81. Even otherwise, the authority has rejected the argument about the third respondent being a supervisor not governed by the provisions of the TN Act 43/81 on the basis of the duties assigned to him by a finding of fact.

(3.) As against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the second respondent under Rule 5(A)-of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Rules 1981. The Appellate Authority has also rejected the appeal made by the petitioner, confirming the order of the Original Authority i.e., the first respondent. The Writ Petition was filed in the year 2004 and an order of stay was, obtained on October 27, 2004.