Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Suresh Kumar, J.
Management of Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. – Appellants
Vs.
A. Annadurai and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 35336 of 2003
Decided On : 08-12-2017
Tamilnadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 – Section 2 – Suspension – Misconduct – First respondent was working as Assistant Manager in Annur Branch of the petitioner-Bank, while so, he was suspended for misconduct. – Thereafter, after suspension, the first respondent was dismissed from service – It is the claim of the petitioner-Bank that during suspension period, subsistence allowance was paid to the first respondent as per the Bye-laws of the petitioner-Bank. – Held, Here the case in hand is that, though the first respondent was the Assistant Manger, he had been shown in the supervisory cadre and his salary was also definitely more than Rs. 3,500/- where can he be treated as a managerial person, for the purpose of Section 2(a) of the Act? – Answering this question is very easy, because the second limb of Clause (ii) under Section 2(a) of the said Act itself, says that such supervisory cadre persons functioning mainly in a managerial nature, cannot be treated as managerial cadre. – Here the case on hand has been factually found by both the third respondent original authority as well as the second respondent appellate authority under the Act, that there was no evidence to show that the first respondent deceased Assistant Manager had been mainly functioning in the managerial nature. – Since it was factual finding that its cadre was only clerical in nature, though it has been placed under the supervisory cadre, it can never be termed as managerial person or administrative person, in order to exclude him from the purview of the term employee within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act. – Position has been rightly considered in proper perspective, both by the third respondent as well as by the second respondent. – Therefore, the order passed by the third respondent as confirmed by the second respondent, which is impugned herein, in the opinion of this Court, warrants no interference, as this Court finds nothing infirm or it runs contra to the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Act as well as the special Bye-laws made by the petitioner-Bank, which was in fact marked as Ex. P1, before the authorities. – For all these reasons stated above, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the order, passed by the official respondents, impugned herein. – Writ Petition Dismissed.
R. Suresh Kumar, J.
1. The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records pertaining to the order of the third respondent passed in P.S.A. No. 4 of 2001 dated 26.04.2002, as confirmed by the order of the 2nd respondent in A.P.S.A. No. 7 of 2002 dated 19.05.2003 and quash the same. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of the case are as follows.
2. The first respondent was working as Assistant Manager in Annur Branch of the petitioner-Bank, while so, he was suspended on 14.09.1999 for misconduct. Thereafter, after suspension, the first respondent was dismissed from service on 19.06.2001. It is the claim of the petitioner-Bank that during suspension period, subsistence allowance was paid to the first respondent as per the Bye-laws of the petitioner-Bank.
3. However, the first respondent had approached the third respondent under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 in P.S.A. No. 4 of 2001, where the first respondent claimed that he was suspended on 19.05.1999, before suspension, he was receiving a sum of Rs. 14,610/- as salary and hence, he is entitled to get the said sum 100% as Subsistence Allowance. Though, the said petition was resisted by the petitioner-Bank on the ground that the said Act was not applicable to the first respondent, as the term employee mentioned in the said Act, would not cover the managerial staff, since the first respondent worked as Assistant Manager in the managerial capacity, he cannot be brought within the meaning of the term "employee" and therefore, the said petition should be dismissed.
4. However, the third respondent after having considered the rival claims made by the parties, allowed the said P.S.A. No. 4 of 2001, by order dated 26.04.2002. Aggrieved over the said order of the third respondent, the petitioner-Bank filed an appeal in APSA. No. 7 of 2002 before the second respondent, where also the said plea, as has been raised before the third respondent, was raised by the petitioner-Bank. However, the second respondent also, after having considered the said plea made by the petitioner-Bank, as to whether the first respondent was a person working in the managerial capacity, by thus, he was out of purview of the term employee as contemplated under Section 2(a) of the said Act, holding that the first respondent was working in a clerical cadre and therefore, he can be included within the meaning of the term employee and by thus, he was entitled to get the benefits of the Subsistence Allowance, under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act and therefore, the order passed by the third respondent in PSA. No. 4 of 2001 dated 26.04.2002, has to be confirmed. Accordingly, the second respondent confirmed the said order, by an order dated 19.05.2003 in APSA. No. 7 of 2002, as against which the present writ petition has been filed.
5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the first respondent-employee died and therefore, a petition was filed by his wife and minor daughter in WP.MP. No. 1170 of 2008, seeking to implead themselves as the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent-employee. The said petition was allowed by this Court, by an order dated 14.02.2014, that is how the wife and daughter of the deceased first respondent became the respondents in this case on behalf of the first respondent.
6. I have heard Mr. R. Shanmugham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
7. He would contend that there are special Bye-laws relating to the service conditions of the employees working in the petitioner-Bank and the Bank has given a list of the persons/employees working in the Bank, according, to which, since the deceased first respondent had been working as Assistant Manager, he had been entrusted with certain managerial responsibilities, and therefore, he be treated as a managerial person and not mere
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
