Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Recaero India Private Limited, a company engaged in manufacturing aircraft components with 82 workmen, challenged an order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Division-1, Bangalore, determining subsistence allowance payable to the first respondent workman under the Karnataka Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1988. The workman was employed as a CNC operator and was placed under suspension on 08.01.2013. Subsequently, after a domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 21.07.2014. The dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court and was pending. The workman alleged non-payment of subsistence allowance from 08.01.2013 to 21.07.2014 and approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The Assistant Labour Commissioner passed the impugned order directing payment of subsistence allowance. The management contended that the workman was paid subsistence allowance and that the authority had no jurisdiction to determine subsistence allowance after dismissal. The court examined the scope of the Act and held that subsistence allowance is payable only during suspension, not after dismissal. The court found that the authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by determining subsistence allowance for the period after dismissal without proper enquiry into disputed facts. The court quashed the order and remitted the matter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to decide afresh after giving opportunity to both parties to lead evidence, if necessary, or to relegate the workman to civil remedy.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Subsistence Allowance - Jurisdiction of Authority - Karnataka Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1988 - The Assistant Labour Commissioner under the Act has jurisdiction only to determine subsistence allowance payable during the period of suspension, not after dismissal. The order determining subsistence allowance for a period after dismissal was held to be without jurisdiction. (Paras 1-5) B) Labour Law - Subsistence Allowance - Disputed Facts - Karnataka Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1988 - Where the management disputed the claim of non-payment of subsistence allowance, the authority ought to have conducted an enquiry or relegated the workman to civil remedy. The order passed without adjudicating disputed facts was unsustainable. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Assistant Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction to determine subsistence allowance for a period after the workman's dismissal from service, and whether the order was sustainable when based on disputed facts without proper enquiry.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to decide afresh after giving opportunity to both parties to lead evidence, if necessary, or to relegate the workman to civil remedy.
Law Points
- Subsistence allowance payable only during suspension period
- not after dismissal
- Authority under Karnataka Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act
- 1988 cannot adjudicate disputed facts without proper enquiry
- Order must be based on admitted facts or after giving opportunity to lead evidence.
