IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction)

RESERVED ON : 24.04.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 29.05.2025 PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE W.P.No. 13653 of 2021 and W.M.P. No. 14512 of 2021 The Managing Director, Dharmapuri Co-operative Sugar Mill, Jerthalav Post, Palaccode Taluk, Dharmapuri District – 636 808. …Petitioner Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour The Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour Salem

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour The Competent Authority, Under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Salem

3. A.Gowran S/o. Alraj Thirtharakali Village & Post, Palaccode Taluk, Dharmapuri District – 636 808. …Respondents Prayer in W.P.

To issue a writ in the nature of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent culminating in the order dated 24.09.2018 made in A.P.S.A. No.1 of 2018 and quash the same and pass such further of other orders in the interest of others. Prayer in W.M.P.

To stay the operation of the order dated 24.9.2018 made in A.P.S.A.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent herein pending disposal of the present writ petition.

Appearance of Parties:

For Petitioner : Mrs.G.Thilakavathi, Senior Counsel For M/s. R.Gophinath, A.Shahana Fathima &

M.Oviya Nila, Advocates For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.R.Kumaravel, AGP For Respondent 3 : No appearance

J U D G M E NT

Heard.

2.The present writ petition has been filed by the Co-operative Sugar Mill challenging the order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the first respondent— Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subsistence Allowance Act”)—in A.P.S.A. No. 1 of 2018. By the said order, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the second respondent dated 09.11.2017 passed in P.S.A. No. 1 of 2017, wherein it was held that the third respondent was entitled to receive subsistence allowance amounting to Rs.1,48,384/-. After accounting for a sum of Rs.15,022/- already paid, the balance amount payable was determined as Rs.

1,33,362/-.

3.The writ petition was admitted on 02.07.2021, and an interim stay was granted, initially until 26.08.2021. The stay was subsequently extended on 27.08.2021 up to 17.09.2021, and again on 16.11.2021, it was extended until further orders. Although the third respondent was duly served, he did not appear either in person or through counsel. Nevertheless, by order dated 07.11.2024, this Court referred the matter to the Mediation Centre. The first session was scheduled for 12.11.2024. However, it is seen from the records that the third respondent failed to appear on 12.11.2024, as well as on the subsequent scheduled dates—22.11.2024 and 02.12.2024. In view of the non-

participation, the matter was returned to this Court for final adjudication. 4.It is significant to note that while the petitioner sugar mill has challenged the appellate order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the first respondent —confirming the order of the second respondent—it has not chosen to challenge the original order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the second respondent in P.S.A. No. 1 of 2017. As a result, even if the appellate order were to be set aside, the order of the second respondent would continue to remain in force. On this short ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.The records reveal that the third respondent was employed as a Centrifugal Operator in the petitioner mill. He was placed under suspension by order dated 18.09.2010 issued by the Special Officer, on the ground that he had been arrested in connection with the murder of a temple priest. Relying on the byelaws of the society, particularly Byelaw No. 48, the suspension was made effective from 26.08.2010. The third respondent, by letter dated 25.03.2011, sought revocation of the suspension and asserted that he had no involvement in the offence alleged a