BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI WP(MD)No.15332 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.12247 of 2021 The Management, The Arumanai Co-Operative Stores Ltd - No.Y 286, Arumanai – 629 151, Kanyakumari District, Rep by its President. ...Petitioner Vs

1.The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, (Joint Commissioner of Labour), Tirunelveli.

2.The Authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, (Assistant Commissioner of Labour), Tirunelveli.

3.N.Sivakumar (Deceased)

4.S.Mallika

5.Aarthi Priya Dharshini. S.M.

6.Athira Priya Dharshini.S.M ...Respondents [R4 to R6 are substituted vide order dated 22.09.2025 in WMP(MD)No.

14447 of 2022]

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 11.06.2021 passed by the 1^st respondent in PSA (Appeal)No.1 of 2020 confirming the impugned order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent in PSA.No.10 of 2018 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.E.Ilango, For Respondent : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar, Nos.1 and 2 Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.P.Willson Associates Nos.3 to 6

ORDER

The management / Arumanai Co-operative Stores Limited has preferred this writ petition as against the order passed by the 1^st respondent the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 (in short 'the Act'), confirming the order of the 2^nd respondent directing the petitioner management to pay the subsistence allowance to the 3^rd respondent, the erstwhile Secretary of the petitioner co-operative stores.

2.The 3^rd respondent was suspended from service on 22.12.2017 contemplating disciplinary proceedings. He was issued with a charge memo and was dismissed from service on 02.02.2019 after a full-fledged enquiry and also by following due process. The 3^rd respondent filed an application before the 2^nd respondent claiming subsistence allowance for the period between 22.12.2017 and 16.07.2018. The 2^nd respondent / the authority under the Act has allowed the application filed by the 3^rd respondent in PSA.No.10 of 2018 directing the petitioner management to pay a sum of Rs.1,14,870/-within a stipulated time. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner management has preferred an appeal before the 1^st respondent, who by his impugned order dated 11.06.2021 has dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed as against the order of the

1^st respondent dated 11.06.2021.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner management submits that

the 3rd respondent was employed as a Secretary and he was discharging his duty in the managerial cadre and therefore, he is not entitled for subsistence allowance as per the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the nature of work assigned to the 3rd respondent, the definition for an employee as provided under

Section 2(a) of the Act. He has also relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the Management, Elavadi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Vs Assistant Commissioner of Labour [2017 (2) LLN 256] in support of his contention that the 3^rd respondent being a Secretary will not come under the Act.

4.The learned counsel further submits that the 3^rd respondent as the Secretary has committed several irregularities in the stores and for the same, an enquiry was conducted and surcharge proceedings were initiated. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the 3^rd respondent is not entitled for any relief under the Act. However, the respondents 1 and 2 without considering the settled position, have erroneously passed the orders, which need to be interfered with.

5.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submits that though the 3^rd respondent was employed as a Secretary, he had discharged the clerical duty only and th