IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5088 of 2009(E)
1. PALGHAT SARVODAYA SANGH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V. KUMARAN,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :25/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) Nos.5088 & 5089 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in these writ petitions is against Ext.P7, an order
passed by the 2nd respondent in an application made by the 1st
respondent in these writ petitions, condoning the delay in making
the application under Section 4 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence
Allowances Act, 1972.
2. The petitioner states that the 1st respondent in these writ
petitions were placed under suspension by Ext.P1 orders dated
28/12/2002. It is stated that the applications for subsistence
allowances produced as Ext.P4 were made by the 1st respondents
only on 02/01/2006. The delay involved was sought to be condoned
by filing separate applications, which were contested by the
petitioner. Ultimately by Ext.P7 orders, the delay was condoned.
The main objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that there has not been any consideration of the objections raised by
him in Ext.P6 counter statement filed to Ext.P4 applications for
condonation of delay.
WP(C) Nos.5088 & 5089/2009
-2-
3. However, on a reading of Ext.P7, I am not in a position to
agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. First of all, the
payment of subsistence allowance is a matter of statutory obligation
of the employer in terms of the provisions contained under the
Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. If there has
been any delay on the part of a workman in making an application
for getting the amount recovered, such delay should be liberally
condoned. This view has been taken by this Court in Neelakandan
Namboothiri v. State of Kerala (2001(1) KLT 896). This reference is
also made in Ext.P7 orders.
4. Therefore, I am not satisfied that Ext.P7 orders deserve
to be interfered by this Court in these proceedings. Needless to say
that I have not considered the merits of the claim made by the
respondent workmen, and it is for the 2nd respondent to deal with
such matters.
These writ petitions are disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg