JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 notice, whereby revenue recovery proceedings was initiated for recovery of the amount due under Ext.P3 order passed by the 4^th respondent, Deputy Labour Commissioner.

2. Petitioner submits that he is a doctor by profession and is a partner of a hospital. Petitioner retired from the said partnership on 17.04.2021 as evident from Ext.P2. While so, Ext.P3 order was issued by the 4^th respondent for payment of subsistence allowance of Rs.19,300/- to the 7^th respondent and for recovery of the said amount, Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner submits that there are other two partners (respondents 5 and 6) and going by Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 , all the partners are jointly and severally liable for payment of any amount due from the partnership.

It is an admitted case that the petitioner retired from the partnership only as per Ext.P2 dated 17.04.2021. Ext.P3 order by the 4^th respondent dated 06.03.2020 on an application submitted by the 7^th respondent was issued at a time when the petitioner was very much a partner of the firm. Therefore, I find no illegality in the issuance of Ext.P5