Thread Started by #pesakkimuthu

A worker was suspended for 2 years and then allowed to retire from service on attaining age of superannuation. He claimed subsistence allowance for the period of suspension under Tamilnadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act,1981, after superannuation. The workman filed a petition,after his retirement only, before the Authority constituted under the above Act claiming subsistence allowance. The Authority dismissed the claim stating that the retired employee is not coming under the definition of employee in the above Act.The Act deals with only dismissed,discharged and retrenched worker only . Any citation to disapprove the above and to bring retired employee also who was denied suspension allowance for the suspension period suffered by him while in service
17th October 2018 From India, Tirunelveli
You have not provided info w.r.t. what happened to the PE inquiry, was there any charge sheet and followed up by any departmental inquiry and result thereof. It appears from what you stated, the employee (was allowed) retired from suspension (presumably from the suspension without revoking the suspension per se). What about his terminal benefits, pension payments, PF contribution etc. was there any break in service towards the end? In any case, suspension without payment of 'subsistence allowance' is illegal and it's a fit case to fight it out in the court ( I fear the govt.dept.would have closed the inquiry on paper, finding him guilty of the charges and imposing compulsory retirement which they would have not revealed to him. Pl.try to gather the secret thru' your sources. It's not my intention to frighten you but thinking of possibilities in the circumstances briefed).
17th October 2018 From India, Bangalore
Dear Esakkimuthu,
The reason cited for dismissal of the claim for subsistence allowance seems not acceptable. However, one can not comment upon it further without seeing the entire orders passed by the Authority.
17th October 2018 From India, Salem
The worker ,dismissed after enquiry was reinstated by HC order with lesser punishment,worked for some period and then retired.After retirement he claimed subsistence allowance which was not allowed on the ground that retired worker is not an workman as per the definition of workman which includes present worker, dismissed, discharged and retrenched worker and not retired worknan
18th October 2018 From India, Tirunelveli
If a worker is not suspended and the enquiry has been closed but still the management is not paying any subsistence allowance in the court nor taking the employee back to work and in the court on requesting the court that the workman is eligible to get subsistence allowance from the court for more than 3 years the management replies that the decission to get the subsistence allowance is not in the jurisdiction of the court. What to do in such matters?
18th October 2018 From India, Kanpur
Some more questions need to be answered in this regard.
The nonpayment of subsistence allowance to the delinquent would render the entire disciplinary proceedings taken against him vitiated and the punishment awarded to be set aside in judicial review. Whether there is any mention about the nonpayment of subsistence allowance in the High Court's orders?
As it is, the interpretation of the Authority under the PSA Act, 1981 seems not to be correct isolating the case of termination of employment by retirement when the employee was denied subsistence allowance. But for this, whether the individual was an employee as defined under the Act?
Whether the individual preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner of Labor who is the Appellate Authority under the Act?
18th October 2018 From India, Salem
Dear Esaikimuthu,
Full facts of the case and development that followed has not been given to us in order to apply our appraisal reasonable. Here I attach a SC judgment on non-payment of 'subsistence allow. which can be referred to in case some of the facts matches with similarities present in both the cases. Also discussion taken place earlier on the subject may be seen in this link-
https://www.citehr.com/439659-subsis...d.html#1989240
20th October 2018 From India, Bangalore

Attached Files
Membership is required for download. Create An Account First
File Type: docx Capt.Paul Anthony's Vs.BGML-Subsistence Allw.SC.docx (29.5 KB, 10 views)

Reply (Add What You Know) Start New Discussion

Cite.Co - is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors. Register Here and help by adding your inputs to this topic/query page.
Prime Sponsor: TALENTEDGE - Certification Courses for career growth from top institutes like IIM / XLRI direct to device (online digital learning)





About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2019 Cite.Co™