IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI Review Application No.40 of 2015 The Management, Irudhukottai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Rep. By its Special Officer, Irudhukottai, Thenkanikottai, Krishnagiri District. ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem.

2.G.Vijayakumar ... Respondents Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C. to review the order passed in W.P.No.21443 of 2009 dated

09.08.2011 on the file of this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy For Respondents : Labour Court [R1]

No appearance [R2]

Amicus Curiae : Mr.Balan Haridass *****

ORDER

This Review Application has been filed by the petitioner seeking to review the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21443 of 2009.

2. Review petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.21443 of

2009, seeking to quash the award dated 08.07.2009 in C.P.No.100 of 2008 passed by the 1^st respondent/Labour Court and this Court, vide order dated 09.08.2011 dismissed the said writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred a writ appeal before this Court in W.A.No.2294 of 2012 and the Division Bench of this Court, passed a judgment dated 07.11.2012, granting permission to the petitioner to file a review application. Hence, the petitioner has come up with this Review application.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that the present review application is filed on two grounds; first ground is that when there is a specific provision available for claiming subsistence allowance under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, filing a claim petition u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the ID Act') is not sustainable. Apart from that, when a person committed misappropriation, for which, a criminal case was registered against him in C.C.No.17 of 2004, in which, the 2^nd respondent pleaded guilty and he was let-off under the provisions of the Probationers Offenders Act and when a person in convicted, he is not entitled to payment of subsistence allowance. The said two issues were not properly adjudicated by this Court, thereby the present review application is filed. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the review application.

4. Per contra, Mr.Balan Haridas, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court on behalf of the 2^nd respondent submitted that claiming payment of subsistence allowance u/s 33(C)(2) of the ID Act did not bar in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case reported in 2010 (7) SCC 635, wherein the Apex Court specifically observed that incorrect label of the application and mentioning wrong provision neither confers jurisdiction nor denudes the court of its jurisdiction. Relief sought for, if falls within the jurisdiction of the court, it cannot be thrown out on the ground of its erroneous label or wrong mentioning of provision and the labour court entitled to entertain the petition and only the payment of gratuity is excluded in terms of the Gratuity Act and other beneficiary legislation including payment of subsistance allowance is amendable in terms of Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act. In respect of other ground raised by the petitioner that when the case was ended in conviction under the provisions of the Probationers Offenders Act on 13.04.2005, however, the present impugned order is passed on 08.07.2009 not on the ground of conviction, hence, referring the conviction order and denying the payment of subsistence allowance is not sustainable. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the review petition.

5. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.

6. The petitioner Management had raised two grounds before the Writ Court, viz., firstly that the payment of subsistence allowance can be claimed only before the authorities consistuted under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 and the