HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22567 of 1999 ORDER: The amount involved in this writ petition is hardly Rs.1,000/-, but the writ petition is pending for the past more than a decade. The petitioner might have spent about Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- on this litigation in the name of avoiding a precedent. One M.Kameswara Rao was functioning as an Operator in the Port Trust. He was placed under suspension on 26.05.1987 on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case relating to the suicide of his sister-in-law. As required under the relevant service Rules, he was paid Subsistence Allowance at the rate of 50% of the basic salary for a period of three months. The Rules provide for payment of Subsistence allowance at 75%, after expiry of three months. However, in case, the delay in disposal of the criminal case is attributed to the employee, his subsistence allowance would be paid at 60%. The second respondent-Union took up the matter and raised an Industrial Dispute. It was referred to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and the same was taken up as I.D.No.9 of 1992. By the time the Tribunal took up the matter, the employee was reinstated and the arrears were also paid. However, it took the view that the Subsistence Allowance after three months from the date of suspension ought to have been paid at 75% and since the amount was already paid, a direction was issued to the effect that the petitioner shall pay interest at 12% for the period during which the difference of the amount was not paid. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. For all practical purposes, the cause before the Tribunal did not subsist by the time it took up the matter. The reason is that the employee was reinstated and the arrears of salary were also paid. However, on the short ground that the Subsistence Allowance was paid at 60% instead of at 75%, the interest was directed to be paid. This Court is of the view that such a direction cannot be sustained in law unless and until it was specifically put at issue. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the direction issued by the Tribunal in its order, dated 08.12.1995. However, to compensate the second respondent in this regard, it is directed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the employee concerned, if he is still in service. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 17th June 2010 dr