IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 2380 of 2005(G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- KALLIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1243, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR, SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR, SRI.SAJU JOHN, SRI.R.V.SREEJITH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. R.JAYACHANDRAN, KOCHU VEEDU, NEAR PANCHAYAT OFFICE, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, STATE ADVISORY CONTRACT LABOUR BOARD, (AUTHORITY UNDER THE KERALA PAYMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE ACT 1972), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN, ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER - R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.2380/2005-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 128/2202 DTD. 17/01/2003 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 21/03/2003 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.128/2003 DTD. 01/03/2004 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PLAINT OF A.R.C. 83/2004 FILED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE BANK BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 18/10/2004 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE DEMAND/ATTACHMENT NOTICE DTD. 12/11/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.2380 of 2005-G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is a co-operative bank. The first respondent, one of its employees, was placed under suspension. Though he was ultimately dismissed from service, he was entitled to subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. An order was accordingly passed by the competent authority under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. When revenue recovery was initiated because of non-payment of such amount, this writ petition is filed by the employer society contending that the first respondent had availed different loans and other credit facilities from the employer bank and monies are due from the first respondent to the petitioner and hence, the recovery of subsistence WP(C)2380/2005 -: 2 :- allowance cannot be enforced. It is also stated that notices were issued by the bank directing the first respondent to collect the subsistence allowance after settling the loan amounts due to the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the bank has filed certain arbitration cases against the first respondent for recovery of the amounts under the transactions between them. 2.Section 3(1) of the Act provides that an employee placed under suspension is entitled to subsistence allowance at rates stated therein. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provides that an employee shall not, in any event, be liable to refund or forfeit any part of the subsistence allowance admissible to him under sub-section (1), though on exoneration, the subsistence allowance paid can be adjusted against the full wages admissible for that period. Section 4 provides for recovery of such amounts in such a manner as an arrear of land revenue. From the aforesaid provisions, it is crystal clear that the entitlement to subsistence allowance and its WP(C)2380/2005 -: 3 :- protection from refund and forfeiture insulate the first respondent employee from any forfeiture or recovery by the petitioner employer of any portion of the subsistence allowance towards any amount allegedly due from the first respondent to the petitioner on the basis of the loan and other credit facility transactions. The provision for subsistence allowance and the object sought to be achieved by the enactment in question are referable to sustenance while out of employment and therefore, any other view of the matter would put to peril the legislative object and intention of the legislation of the Act in question. 3.For the foregoing reasons, the contention of the petitioner is only to be repelled. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/1206