IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 29346 of 2006(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R. BHANUVIKRAMAN PILLAI, MANAGER, THRIKKONNAMARCODE DEVASWOM, THALAVOOR P.O., KUNNIKODE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. V.P. SAKTHIDHARAN NAIR, ASWATHY NILAYAM, PANDITHITTA, AMBALANIRAPPU, THALAVOOR, KUNNICODE, KOLLAM. 2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & AUTHORITY UNDER SEC.4 OF THE KERALA PAYMENT AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE ACT, KOLLAM. 3. DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER, PUNALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAJEEV KOYICKAL SMT.P.I.SHAMLATH SRI.K.R.NANDAKUMAR SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.29346/2006/R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 9.11.2005. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 18.12.2005. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.5.2006. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.6.2006. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.7.2006. EXT. P6: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26.6.2006. EXT. P7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.8.2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R1: COPY OF THE RECEIPTS SHOWING THE RETURNS OF ONAM ADVANCES BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE THALAVOOR THRIKONNAMARKODE DEVASWOM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No. 29346 of 2006(R) ======================= Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Manager of the Thrikkonnamarcode Devaswom. He is challenging Ext.P7 order of the Authority under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act directing payment of subsistence allowance to the 1st respondent, who was suspended pending enquiry, for the period from 18.12.2005 to 17.5.2006. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent was employed occasionally as a night watchman in the Devaswom on daily wages. On charges of deliriction of duties, he was suspended from service pending disciplinary action. The 1st respondent filed an application before the 2nd respondent seeking direction to the petitioner to pay subsistence allowance due to him by the petitioner under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act for the period from 18-12-2005 to 17-5-2006 on the basis of last drawn salary of Rs.2,600/- per month. The 2nd respondent forwarded the petition for enquiry W.P.(C) No. 29346/2006/R -2- by the 3rd respondent and thereafter Ext.P7 order was passed by the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to pay subsistence allowance to the 1st respondent amounting to Rs.7610/- for the above said period. That order is under challenge before me. 2. The petitioner raises the following contentions. The first is that, Ext.P7 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, in so far as Ext.P7 order is completely based on a report of the 3rd respondent copy of which was not furnished to the petitioner at all. Further, petitioner has raised other contentions which have not been considered by 2nd respondent in Ext.P7 order. He submits that that Devaswom is not an establishment as defined under the Act, 1st petitioner is not an employee as defined under the Act and the petitioner is not an employer as defined under the Act. None of contentions had been considered in Ext.P7 is the contention raised. 4. These contentions are disputed by the counsel for the 1st respondent. According to him, the petitioner had duly participated in the enquiry before the 3rd respondent, who had enquired into and after considering all the evidence produced by the petitioner also, the enquiry report was prepared and W.P.(C) No. 29346/2006/R -3- forwarded to the 2nd respondent, based on which alone Ext.P7 order has been passed. He also disputes the contentions of the petitioner that the 1st respondent is not an employee, petitioner is not an employer and Deveswom is not an establishment as covered by the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. First of all, Ext.P7 order has been passed fully relying on the report of the 3rd respondent forwarded to the 2nd respondent, a copy of which has not been furnished to the petitioner . Without a copy of the same, the petitioner cannot effectively contest the matter before the 2nd respondent, since he does not know what exactly 3rd respondent reported to the 2nd respondent. Secondly, from Ext.P6 written objection, it is seen that the petitioner had raised the contention that the 1st respondent is not an employee as defined under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act and that he was also being employed as a wireman in Chengamanad Electricity Office. Those contentions have not been even adverted to in Ext.P7 order. Therefore, I am satisfied W.P.(C) No. 29346/2006/R -4- that Ext.P7 is vitiated for want of compliance with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is quashed and the writ petition is disposed with following directions to the 2nd respondent: The 2nd respondent shall reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent. That shall only be after furnishing a copy of the report, forwarded by the 3rd respondent relied on in Ext.P7 order, to the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent. While passing final orders afresh, the 2nd respondent shall specifically consider and enter specific findings in respect of each of the contentions of the petitioner referred to above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp