A suspended employee's entitlement to subsistence allowance is upheld under applicable cooperative society rules, irrespective of claims of ineligibility based on employee status.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, is aggrieved by an order issued by the Co-operative Arbitration Court directing the petitioner to pay ineligible amount as subsistence allowance to the additional respondents 4 and 5.

2. The petitioner states that the 1^st respondent was working as Secretary of the Society. He was suspended from service on 25.11.2017 for misappropriation of funds. The 1^st respondent was dismissed from service on 17.08.2018. The 1^st respondent's appeal before the Managing Committee was rejected. The 1^st respondent hence filed ARC No.14/2019 before the Co-operative Arbitration Court seeking reinstatement.

3. In the said ARC No.14/2019, the 1^st respondent filed Ext.P2 IA No.57/2019 seeking payment of ₹4,16,606/- towards arrears of subsistence allowance. A revised statement was also filed by the 1^st respondent as per Ext.P3. The petitioner-Society filed Ext.P4 objection and Ext.P5 additional objection. The Arbitration Court passed Ext.P6 order dated 20.09.2022 directing the petitioner to pay ₹4,87,272/- as balance subsistence allowance along with 7%

interest within two months.

4. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 revision petition. The revision petition was dismissed as per Ext.P11 order dated 19.09.2023. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P11 revision petitions.

5. The petitioner-Society submits that Exts.P6 and P11 are illegal and arbitrary. According to the petitioner, the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act is not applicable to the 1^st respondent as he would not come under the purview of the term “worker”. According to the petitioner, Rule 198(6) will apply and hence the 1^st respondent is not entitled to payment of subsistence allowance. Subsistence allowance is to be paid to an eligible workman to the extent of half of the pay and the management is at its discretion to pay Dearness Allowance equal to the rate of subsistence allowance. Therefore, if the basic pay is ₹16,550/-, DA cannot be exceeding the said amount. The claim made by the 1^st respondent is excessive.

6. The Arbitration Court and the Tribunal did not permit the petitioner-Society to deduct amounts due to the Society. For that reason also, Exts.P6 and P11 are illegal. The 1^st respondent did not produce non-employment certificate for claiming subsistence allowance. For all the above reasons, Exts.P6 and P11 are liable to be set aside, contended the petitioner.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader representing respondents 2 and 3 and the learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 4 and 5, who are the legal representatives of the 1^st petitioner-employee, who passed away during the pendency of the proceedings.

8. The counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in Kudayam S. Co-operative Bank Limited v. Radhakrishnan Nair [1993 (3) KLT 76] to contend that the subsistence allowance payable under Rule 198(6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 can be a subject matter of deduction.

9. The 1^st respondent filed Ext.P1 ARC claiming that he was receiving a monthly salary of ₹71,992/-. The 1^st respondent claimed that the petitioner is liable to pay ₹79,80,456/- as compensation to the 1^st respondent. In the ARC, the 1^st respondent filed IA No.57/2019 wherein the 1^st respondent submitted that his basic pay is ₹33,100/- and therefore he is entitled to the leave salary of ₹55,372/- per month. The 1^st respondent computed ₹4,87,274/- as subsistence allowance and ₹2,09,528/- as interest. The Co- operative Arbitration Court passed Ext.P6 order holding that the 1^st respondent is entitled to get ₹4,87,272/- as balance subsistence allowance along with 7% interest.

10. While computing the subsistence allow