Antony Dominic, J. The 2nd respondent in WP(C) No.34424/03 is the appellant. The 1st respondent herein was an employee of the appellant. She was suspended w.e.f. 17/4/2000. Subsequently, a settlement was entered into between the employer and the employees revising the emoluments w.e.f. 1/1/2000. Though the Conciliation Officer calculated the subsistence allowance due to the 1st respondent on the basis of the wages as revised, in Ext.P1 order passed by the 2nd respondent, payment of subsistence allowance at the rate as was payable to the 1st respondent on the date of her suspension, viz., the pre revised wages was directed.
2. It is challenging Ext.P2 order, the writ petition was filed contending that in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, the 1st respondent was entitled to be paid subsistence allowance reckoned on the basis of the wages as revised w.e.f. 01/1/2000. The learned single Judge upheld the said contention and ordered that Ext.P2 order would stand modified applying the rate of wages as indicated in Ext.P1 and also directed the appellant to pay a total amount of `23,244.10 within one month from the date of the judgment with a rider that failure to pay so would result in an additional liability of interest @ 12% per annum. It is this judgment which is challenged by the employer before us.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent apart from the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4. Two questions are raised before us. The first one was whether the 1st respondent was entitled to be paid subsistence allowance on the basis of the wages as revised w.e.f. 1/1/2000. The second question was whether the learned single Judge was justified in directing that the appellant shall pay the amount within the time specified in the judgment.
5. In so far as the first question is concerned, this issue will have to be resolved in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act itself. Section 3 of the Act provides for payment of subsistence allowance and as per this Act, whenever an employee is placed under suspension, he shall be paid by the employer for the period during which he is under suspension subsistence allowance of an amount equal to fifty per centum of the wages which the employee was drawing immediately before such suspension. This, therefore, shows that the entitlement of the employee will have to be reckoned based on the wages which he was entitled to as on the date of suspension.
6. In so far as this case is concerned, though the employee was placed under suspension on 17/4/2000, subsequently, based on a settlement between the employer and the workmen, wages were revised w.e.f. 1/1/2000. As a result, the wage payable to the employee on 17/4/2000 also stood revised and she was entitled to be paid the revised wages from 17/4/2000. If that be so, the wage which the employee was drawing, mentioned in Section 3 of the Act, has to be the wage which was payable by the employer as on the date of suspension.
This, therefore, shows that the conclusion of the learned single Judge that the employee was entitled to be paid subsistence allowance based on the wages as revised w.e.f. 1/1/2000 is perfectly legal and does not merit interference.
7. The second issue is in relation to the correctness of the direction of the learned single Judge requiring the appellant to pay the amount due within the time specified. The provisions of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act and the Rules show that if subsistence allowance has become payable and default is committed in paying the same, machinery has been provided for recovering the amount payable. In other words, it is by taking recourse to such machinery provided in the Act that the amount due towards subsistence allowance can be recovered by an employee who is placed under suspension. When the statute itself provided for a machinery for recovery of the amount due, there is no justification for this Court to provide extra statutory method of requiring the employer to pay the amount due under the statute. If that be so, the direction of the learned single Judge requiring the appellant to pay the amount due and exposing her to the peril of contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act in the event of non payment was not justified. Therefore, we vacate the directions in the judgment requiring the appellant to pay the amount found to be due within the time specified in the judgment.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE