This writ petition has been filed challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour/Appellate Authority, Coimbatore District directing the petitioner to pay the subsistence allowance from 4.8.2013 to 31.12.2014 to the third respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent, having suffered an order of suspension on 2.8.2013, has gone to another place and gainfully employed. Therefore, as per Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, which says that an employee shall not be entitled to receive any subsistence allowance if he accepts any other employment during the period of his suspension in any establishment other than the establishment where he had been working immediately before his suspension, the third respondent is not entitled to get the subsistence allowance. He also submitted that a notice was also issued by the petitioner on 27.11.2013 asking the third respondent to give his explanation as to why he should be paid the subsistence allowance when he was gainfully employed in other place, for which the third respondent has not given any reply. That shows that he was gainfully employed.
3. But this Court is unable to appreciate the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A careful reading of the notice dated 27.11.2013 issued by the petitioner to the third respondent does not show from what period he was employed in any other establishment. Simply the said notice dated 27.11.2013 says that he was employed with another individual. Neither the name of the establishment nor the period of gainful employment has been mentioned. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent directing the petitioner to pay the subsistence allowance to the third respondent cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P.No.30763 of 2017 is also dismissed. No costs.