IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5088 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PALGHAT SARVODAYA SANGH, HEAD OFFICE, OTTAPALAM - 01, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K. GOPINATHAN. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. V. KUMARAN, S/O. GOVINDA MENON, DEVI BHAVAN, P.O. KARINKARAPULLY, PALAKKAD. 2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, (AUTHORITY UNDER KERALA PAYMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWACE ACT), PALAKKAD. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 5089 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.5088 & 5089 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in these writ petitions is against Ext.P7, an order passed by the 2nd respondent in an application made by the 1st respondent in these writ petitions, condoning the delay in making the application under Section 4 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowances Act, 1972. 2. The petitioner states that the 1st respondent in these writ petitions were placed under suspension by Ext.P1 orders dated 28/12/2002. It is stated that the applications for subsistence allowances produced as Ext.P4 were made by the 1st respondents only on 02/01/2006. The delay involved was sought to be condoned by filing separate applications, which were contested by the petitioner. Ultimately by Ext.P7 orders, the delay was condoned. The main objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has not been any consideration of the objections raised by him in Ext.P6 counter statement filed to Ext.P4 applications for condonation of delay. WP(C) Nos.5088 & 5089/2009 -2- 3. However, on a reading of Ext.P7, I am not in a position to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. First of all, the payment of subsistence allowance is a matter of statutory obligation of the employer in terms of the provisions contained under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. If there has been any delay on the part of a workman in making an application for getting the amount recovered, such delay should be liberally condoned. This view has been taken by this Court in Neelakandan Namboothiri v. State of Kerala (2001(1) KLT 896). This reference is also made in Ext.P7 orders. 4. Therefore, I am not satisfied that Ext.P7 orders deserve to be interfered by this Court in these proceedings. Needless to say that I have not considered the merits of the claim made by the respondent workmen, and it is for the 2nd respondent to deal with such matters. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg