2, 10:01] DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: Madras High Court order dated 07.09.2022 by Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Kumaresh Babu – Labour Case – Subsistence Allowance – Regulation 56(2) of the Service Regulation of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board not specified that from whom the certificate should obtained – Exhibits relied by the petitioner are only xerox copies and to prove the same, the authors of the said exhibits are not examined by the petitioner – witness ought to have been cross examined to substantiate that the aforesaid exhibits.
[9/22, 10:01] DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: Madras High Court order dated 07.09.2022 by Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Kumaresh Babu – Labour Case – Subsistence Allowance – Regulation 56(2) of the Service Regulation of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board not specified that from whom the certificate should obtained – Exhibits relied by the petitioner are only xerox copies and to prove the same, the authors of the said exhibits are not examined by the petitioner – witness ought to have been cross examined to substantiate that the aforesaid exhibits.
W.P.No.36312 of 2005
The Superintending Engineer -Vs- Thiru.A.Jesudas and another
Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.P.Subramanian
Counsel for the respondent: Mr.E.Duraivaiyapuri
The writ petitioner who is the Superintending Engineer, Udumalpet Electricity Distribution Circle, TNEB, has filed this Writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court made in C.P. No.32 of 1999 dated 29.11.2004 wherein it had directed the payment of subsistence allowance in a sum of Rs.53,309/- to the first respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that when the first respondent was under suspension from 26.06.1997 to 02.07.1998, he sought for subsistence allowance and the same was refused on the ground that he had not complied with the conditions stipulated in the order of suspension namely, he should stay at the Headquarters and he should produce the certificate to show that he was not engaged in any other employment during the period of suspension, as per Regulation 56(2) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation.
3. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner had produced Ex.M5, which is a xerox copy of letter given by the Manager of the Sara Lodge, Tarapuram to show that he has been staying in the Lodge from 01.12.1997 and Ex.M6 again is a xerox copy of the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer. However, not considering the aforesaid exhibits is in violation of Regulation 56(2) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation, the Labour Court has ordered for payment of subsistence allowance. Hence the petitioner prays this Court to set aside the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that Ex.M5 and Ex.M6 that were marked are xerox copies and authors of the said exhibits were not examined by the petitioner. Further, according to him, Regulation 56(2) could not be complied with as the order does not specify from whom such certificate was obtained. It is their further case that there is no authority for the person to issue the certificate for a negative.
5. Having considered the arguments made on either side, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has not done any error. The evidence of Ex.M5 and Ex.M6 relied upon by the petitioner, are only xerox copies and not original copies and to prove the same, the authors of the said exhibits are not examined by the petitioner and the witness ought to have been cross examined to substantiate that the aforesaid exhibits have been obtained from them.
6. Further, Regulation 56(2) of the Service Regulation of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, provides that the employee under suspension will have to furnish the certificate to satisfy that he would not be engaged in any other employment, business, profession and vocation. However, it does not specify from where the certificate should have been obtained.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to draw the attention of this Court, relying on Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said submission would not help the petitioner. As Under Section 17B to substantiate that the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period an affidavit by such workman has to be filed before this Court. It requires the satisfaction of the High Court based on such affidavit. Hence, the petitioner cannot rely upon the said Regulation. At any stretch of imagination to obtain a certificate in negative, that too without specifying the authority to issue such certificate under Regulation 56(2) of the Service Regulation of TNEB cannot be complied with.
8. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
[9/22, 10:48] Sekarreporter1: 🌹
