Kerala High Court
The Karapuzha Service Co-Operative ... vs R.Sreelatha Devi
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
MONDAY,THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 20149 of 2005 (W)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
THE KARAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD.NO.K.74, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
OFFICE OF THE KARAPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. R.SREELATHA DEVI,
NANDANAM, KUMARANALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-16.
2. AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INSPECTOR,
DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.
3. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
(AUTHORITY UNDER SEC.6 OF THE KERALA PAYMENT OF
SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE ACT 1972), OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM.
R2 & 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-12-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 20149 of 2005 (W)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHBITS
----------------------------------
P1: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17/10/2003 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PAYMENT ON SUBSISTENCE
ALLOWANCE
P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT SCHEDULING
THE HEARING ON EXHIBIT P1 PETITION ON 16/4/2004
P3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDNT BY THE PETITIONER TO P1 PETITION DTD.NIL.
P4: COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE
P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/10/2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER HANDING OVER THE CHARGE OF BRANCH
MANAGER (WHICH WAS PRODUCED IN THE PROCEEDINGS AS EXHIBIT B1)
P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1-4-2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT UNDER REGISTERED POST INTIMATING HER TO RECEIVE
THE SUBSISTANCE ALLOWANCE
P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B 916/03 DATED 13/1/2005 PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHBITS
-------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
S.SIRI JAGAN J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 20149 of 2005
==================
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a co-operative bank. They suspended the 1st respondent pending enquiry into certain misconducts against her. Complaining that she has not been paid subsistence allowance as provided under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, the 1st respondent filed an application before the 3rd respondent seeking a direction to the petitioner herein to pay to the 1st respondent subsistence allowance as payable under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. Before the 3rd respondent, the petitioner took the stand that the 1st respondent was functioning as the branch manager of a branch of the petitioner bank and, therefore, she is functioning in a managerial capacity. The definition of "employee" in the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act excludes persons working in a managerial and administrative capacity and, therefore, the 1st respondent is not eligible for subsistence allowance as provided under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act was the contention raised. It was the contention of w.p.c.20149/05 - : 2 :-
the petitioner that the 1st respondent is eligible for subsistence allowance only as provided under the Kerala Service Rules, which has been paid to the 1st respondent. Rejecting the contention of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent held that the 1st respondent was only holding additional charge of the post of branch manager at the time of suspension, which cannot be the criterion for deciding the question as to whether the 1st respondent is holding a position in a managerial and administrative capacity, insofar as she was working in the substantiative post of accountant only. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to pay subsistence allowance as computed by the 3rd respondent under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, for the period from 22.10.2002 to 6.8.2003 amounting to ` 52,348/-, by Ext.P7 order. The petitioner is challenging that order.
2. The counsel for the petitioner reiterates the stand of the petitioner before the 3rd respondent that since the petitioner was actually working in the capacity as a branch manager, she was working in a managerial and administrative capacity and therefore the 1st respondent is excluded from the purview of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Act. But the finding is that the 1st w.p.c.20149/05 - : 3 :-
respondent was only holding additional charge of the post of branch manager. The 1st respondent was never appointed to the substantiative post of branch manager. The 1st respondent was actually working at the time of her suspension in the substantiative post of accountant. Therefore, what are relevant for deciding the question as to whether the 1st respondent was an employee as defined under the Act are the duties and functions attached to the post of accountant. The petitioner had not adduced any evidence before the 3rd respondent to the effect that the post of accountant carries duties and responsibilities, managerial or administrative in nature. That being so, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge