Claimed subsistence allowance for the period of suspension under Tamilnadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act

A worker was suspended for 2 years and then allowed to retire from service upon reaching the age of superannuation. He claimed a subsistence allowance for the period of suspension under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, after superannuation. The workman filed a petition after his retirement before the Authority constituted under the above Act, claiming subsistence allowance. The Authority dismissed the claim stating that the retired employee does not fall under the definition of an employee in the above Act. The Act only deals with dismissed, discharged, and retrenched workers. Is there any citation to disapprove the above and to include retired employees who were denied suspension allowance for the period of suspension they endured while in service?

Hi there,

You have not provided information regarding what happened to the PE inquiry. Was there any charge sheet and was it followed up by any departmental inquiry, and what was the result thereof? It appears from what you stated that the employee retired from suspension (presumably from the suspension without revoking the suspension per se). What about his terminal benefits, pension payments, PF contributions, etc.? Was there any break in service towards the end?

In any case, suspension without payment of 'subsistence allowance' is illegal, and it's a fit case to fight it out in court. I fear the government department would have closed the inquiry on paper, finding him guilty of the charges and imposing compulsory retirement, which they would not have revealed to him. Please try to gather this information through your sources. It's not my intention to frighten you but to consider the possibilities in the circumstances briefed.

Dear Esakkimuthu,

The reason cited for dismissal of the claim for subsistence allowance seems not acceptable. However, one cannot comment further on it without seeing the entire orders passed by the Authority.

The worker, dismissed after an enquiry, was reinstated by an HC order with a lesser punishment. He worked for some period and then retired. After retirement, he claimed a subsistence allowance, which was not allowed on the grounds that a retired worker is not a workman as per the definition. The definition of a workman includes present workers, dismissed, discharged, and retrenched workers, but not retired workers.

If a worker is not suspended and the enquiry has been closed, but still, the management is not paying any subsistence allowance in the court nor taking the employee back to work. In the court, on requesting that the workman is eligible to receive subsistence allowance from the court for more than 3 years, the management replies that the decision to provide the subsistence allowance is not within the jurisdiction of the court. What should be done in such matters?

Some more questions need to be answered in this regard. The nonpayment of subsistence allowance to the delinquent would render the entire disciplinary proceedings taken against him vitiated and the punishment awarded to be set aside in judicial review. Whether there is any mention about the nonpayment of subsistence allowance in the High Court's orders?

As it is, the interpretation of the Authority under the PSA Act, 1981 seems not to be correct isolating the case of termination of employment by retirement when the employee was denied subsistence allowance. But for this, whether the individual was an employee as defined under the Act? Whether the individual preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner of Labor who is the Appellate Authority under the Act?

Dear Esaikimuthu,

The full facts of the case and the developments that followed have not been provided to us in order to make a reasonable appraisal. Here, I attach a Supreme Court judgment on non-payment of 'subsistence allowance,' which can be referred to in case some of the facts match with similarities present in both cases. Also, discussions that took place earlier on the subject may be found in this link: https://www.citehr.com/439659-subsis...d.html#1989240