1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN Writ Appeal (MD) No.600 of 2011 Eraniel Sarvodaya Sangam, VII-II-9 Nagercoil Road, Eraniel, Neyyoor, K.K.District-629802. Represented by its Secretary :Appelant/Petitioner -Vs- 1.Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Thiruvananthapuram Road, Tirunelveli – 627 002. 2.C.Rameswaran, S/o.Chelliahan, Madathuvezhai Veedu, Maruthangodu Post, Kuzhithurai, K.K.District. :Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act against the order passed by this Honourable Court dated 12.11.2010, in W.P.No.7945 of 2010. Prayer in WP No.7945 of 2010:Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of prohibition, preventing the 1st respondent from entertaining and deciding the claim filed by the second respondent under the Tamilnadu payment of substistance Allowance Act, taken on file in PSA 16/2005 by the 1st respondent. For Appellant :Mr.T.Ravichandran For Respondents :Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI, J.) Unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before this Bench challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.11.2010, dismissing Writ Petition No.7945 of 2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.The relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition is for a prohibition preventing the first respondent Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, from entertaining and deciding the claim filed by the second respondent under Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act taken on file as P.S.A.No.16 of 2005 by the first respondent. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the second respondent is not an employee of the Sarvodaya Sangh, who was one of the Founders and therefore he is not coming within the definition of term “Workmen”, so as to eligible to claim Subsistence Allowance. It was the further case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the Tamil Nadu Subsistence Allowance Act is not applicable to the petitioner administration, which is a central organisation. The learned Single Judge has considered the entire issues in threadbare and found that it is for the authority, namely, the first respondent to decide as to whether the second respondent is a workmen or not or as to whether the Tamil Nadu Subsistence Allowance Act is applicable or not. By relying upon the decision of D.P.Maheswari v. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1984 SC 153, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the matter involves recording of evidence, where the authority competent has to decide all issues and it is not for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide. Accordingly, the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Thiruvananthapuram Road Tirunelveli. +1CC to Mr.T.Ravichandran, Advocate. SR.No.21874. RR RP/18.07.2011/2P/3C. JUDGMENT MADE IN WA(MD) No.600 of 2011 06.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/