North Madras Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. vs J. Vasanthi, T.S. Santhi and The Assistant Commissioner of Labour I, Subsistence Allowance

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order directing it to pay subsistence allowance to the employees who had been

suspended by it on 30.07.1990 and who remained under suspension till 20.12.1995 when the order of dismissal was passed. It is not the case of

the petitioner that subsistence allowance was paid during that period, nor did it question the applicability of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance

Act to the respondents.

The fact that the suspension was followed by dismissal does not imply that the petitioner can relieve itself of the obligation to pay subsistence

allowance during the period of suspension and that it can clothe itself with immunity against any claim for subsistence allowance under the Act by

passing the order of dismissal.

The whole object of granting subsistence allowance is to enable the affected employee to meet his bare minimum requirements of living and that

object will be ill-served if the employers are allowed to evade the liability of paying the subsistence allowance and thereafter, claim a right of

immunity from claims for such subsistence allowance by passing an order of dismissal to be effective from the date on which the employee was

suspended.

The employer-employee relationship continues till the date of order of dismissal. The petitioner cannot avoid the liability for payment of

allowance which ought to have been paid at the appropriate time, i.e., during the period of suspension.

The writ petitions are dismissed. WMPs. No. 6771 to 6774 of 1996 are dismissed.