IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 8781 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ LALY VARGHESE, LAL VIHAR,PLANTHOTTAM, THIRUPURAM.PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KANJIRAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,NO:3970;KANJIRAMKULAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE PRESIDENT & BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KANJIRAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO:3970;KANJIRAMKULAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R2-R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.8781/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 16.10.2006. EXT.P1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 29.12.2006. EXT.P1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 9.2.2007. EXT.P1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 30.4.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 8.5.07. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 16.5.07. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER DT 16.5.2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 21.5.2007. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 29.5.07. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1390/06-07 DT 15.3.2008. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DT 23.6.2008. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ARC NO.37/06 DT 3.10.2008. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1390/06-07 DT 16.12.2008. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.270/2008 IN A.P.NO.81/2008 DT 4.2.2009. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 15.6.2009. EXTS. OF R2 EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 18.07.2006 ISSUED TO PETITIONER. EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED TO PETITIONER DT 18.7.2006. EXT.R2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DT 8.5.2007 SENT TO PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(d): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DT 21.5.2007 SENT TO PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(e): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 17.5.2007 SENT BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// Rp P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8781 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was senior clerk under the 2nd respondent. It is stated that she was placed under suspension w.e.f. 14/8/06. In ARC 37/06 raised by the petitioner before the Arbitrator, Ext.P9 award was rendered on 3/10/2008 setting aside the suspension. Subsequently, by order dated 16/2/2008, petitioner's services were also terminated w.e.f. 15/3/2008. Meanwhile, the Bank filed an appeal against Ext.P9 before the Tribunal, in which Ext.P11 order has been passed staying Ext.P9. 2. In this writ petition, the complaint of the petitioner is regarding the non payment of the subsistence allowance that is due to her. The Bank has no case that subsistence allowance has been paid. In the counter affidavit, they would say that for payment of subsistence allowance, a certificate of non employment from the petitioner is necessary, which has not been given. According to the Bank, since her suspension, petitioner has been employed in Azhimala Beech Resort, Azhimala, Chowara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram, where her husband Sri.Benny Sukumaran is working as Personnel Manager. It is stated that in WPC 8781/09 :2 : view of this, she was asked to give a declaration that she is unemployed since her suspension, which she was not prepared to give and that Ext.P4 affidavit was not acceptable. It is stated that if the petitioner gives a self declaration that she is not employed anywhere else, subsistence allowance can be disbursed. In the reply filed, the petitioner reiterates that she is unemployed and makes reference to Ext.P12 certificate and Ext.P4 affidavit. 3. Thus essentially the dispute between the parties boils down to the issue whether the petitioner is employed elsewhere since her date of suspension. While the Bank asserts that she is employed under a private employer, petitioner claims otherwise. This is purely a disputed question of fact and the eligibility of the petitioner to be paid subsistence allowance due to her depends on the resolution of this controversy. This disputed issue cannot be resolved in a writ petition. Therefore, in my view the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the authorities under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1974 and Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner and her contentions, I close this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp