Kerala High Court
The Trivandrum Sarvodaya Sangh vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner & ...
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY,THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/3RD ASHADHA, 1938
W.P.(C).No.503 of 2008 (I)
----------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-
-----------------------
THE TRIVANDRUM SARVODAYA SANGH,
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,GRAMODAYA, M.G.ROAD,
THIRUVANANATHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
SRI.S.S.BALU
RESPONDENT(S):-
---------------------------
1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY,
STATE ADVISORY CONTRACT LABOUR BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. SMT.P.PRASANAKUMARI,
PRASUSHA, EDAVAZHIKARA, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR.
R2 BY ADVS. SMT.A.K.PREETHA
SRI.M.R.RAJESH.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
W.P.(C) No.503 OF 2008-I
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
-----------------------------------------
EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
8.6.2006 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF
SRI.BEEMA RAO IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE ISSUES TO
THE STATE DIRECTOR, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
COMMISSIONS.
EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNT
TO BE RECOVER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINANT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NEYYATTINKARA.
EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22.11.2007
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
--------------------------------------- NIL.
Vku/-
[ true copy ]
K. Vinod Chandran, J
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.503 of 2008-I
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P6 order passed under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 [for brevity "the Act"]. The contention raised against Exhibit P6 is that the 2nd respondent was a Manager under the petitioner and, hence, was not entitled to the subsistence allowance under the Act for reason of the supervisory capacity held by her. The petitioner also places reliance on Shertallai Taluk Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner [1990 (2) KLT 175], to buttress his contention.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to Exhibit P1 to indicate that in the show cause notice the petitioner was shown as a Manager. It is also submitted that the complaint filed before the police also described her status as a Manager. The defalcation, for which she was proceeded with, was misappropriation of money amounting to more than Rupees Three lakhs. The petitioner, thus, assailed Exhibit P6. WP(C) No.503 of 2008 - 2 -
3. But for the assertions made by the petitioner in Exhibit P1 show cause notice and Exhibit P4 complaint, there is nothing produced before the authority or before this Court to substantiate the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent was holding the post of a Manager. Further, it is trite that the designation of the employee is not the only criteria and the nature of the duties has to be looked into to understand whether the employee is discharging supervisory duties or not, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Prem Sagar v. S.V.Oil Company [AIR 1965 SC 111], Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. The Workmen [1970 (3) SCC 248], Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah [(2006) 6 SCC 548] and S.K.Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. [(1994) 3 SCC 510].
4. The learned Counsel for the respondent has produced today, by way of a memo, the suspension order issued to the petitioner, No.TSS.I/P/A/c/2006-07/367 dated 20.06.2006. The learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that WP(C) No.503 of 2008 - 3 - in the said order the 2nd respondent is described as an Assistant and there is also a specific direction to pay subsistence allowance as per rules.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
[ true copy ]