Application for S.A.cannot be held time barred.

P. SATHASIVAM, J.

Aggrieved by the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai dated October 31, 1990-first respondent herein in P.S.A. No. 11 of 1990 the petitioner Co-operative Bank has filed the above writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :

The third respondent herein filed application under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Rule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') before the second respondent on October 6, 1989 claiming subsistence allowance of Rs. 1, 889.86 for the period May 8, 1987 to April 24, 1988. The said application was filed along with a petition to condone the delay of 15 months in presenting the application. The petitioner filed a counter opposing the main claim as well as the petition for condonation. The second respondent in his proceedings dated June 4, 1990 declined to condone the delay in filing the application and accordingly dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the second respondent, third respondent preferred an appeal in P.S.A. No. 11 of 1990 on the file of the first respondent herein. The first respondent without going into the merits of the application to condone the delay and without considering the reasons assigned, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the second respondent for passing fresh orders on merits. Against the said order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. In the light of the above factual position, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as contesting third respondent.

4. It is seen that the third respondent herein made an application before the second respondent claiming a sum of Rs. 1, 889.86 towards subsistence allowance by giving details in the said application. After considering the said application, the counter statement filed by the petitioner-management, after holding that the application filed by the third respondent herein is barred by limitation as per Section 4 of the Act, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order the third respondent herein filed on appeal before the Appellate Authority viz., first respondent herein. The first respondent after considering the object of the Act and after noting the various dates with reference to the claim made by the third respondent herein after setting aside the order of the second respondent, remitted the same before the said Authority in order to pass an order on merits.

5. Even though it is stated by the second respondent that the application claiming subsistence allowance has to be made within a period of one year, in order to appreciate the rival contentions it is better to refer the relevant provisions. The Act, namely, Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act was enacted to provide for the payment of subsistence allowance to employees during the period of suspension. Section 4 of the Act deals with, "Recovery of money due from an employer", which is as follows :

"4. Recovery of money due from an employer :

Where any money is due to an employee from an employer under this Act, the employee himself or any other person authorised by him in this behalf, or in the case of the death of the employee, his legal representative may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery make an application to the Government in such manner as may be prescribed for the recovery of money due to him, and if the Government, after giving the employer an opportunity of being heard, in such manner as may be prescribed, are satisfied that any money is so due, they shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue : Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the employee from the employer :