- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51914 WP No. 57230 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 57230 OF 2014 (L-RES) BETWEEN: THE LALIT ASHOK (A UNIT BHARAT HOTEL), KUMARAKRUPA ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS RESIDENT MANAGER …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.PRABHAKAR RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. K.KUMAR NO.22, 2ND CROSS, SHIVASHANKAR BLOCK, HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 024. 2. THE LABOUR OFFICER, SUB-DIVISION V CUM AUTHORITY UNDER KARNATAKA PAYMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE ACT, 1988, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.SRINIVASA FOR R1, ADVOCATE; SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R2) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51914 WP No. 57230 of 2014 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.K.Prabhakar Rao, counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Srinivasa. K., counsel for respondent No.1 and Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2, appeared in person. 2. The short facts are as follows: The petitioner suspended respondent No.1 on 11.01.2013, pending a domestic enquiry against him for having threatened the management's HR. Accordingly, a charge sheet was issued to him on April 24, 2013. It is stated that the domestic enquiry commenced on 19.07.2013 against the first respondent, and he was paid subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% as per certified standing orders and also as per the KPSA Act, 1988. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51914 WP No. 57230 of 2014 As matters stood thus, on 16.06.2014, the first respondent filed a petition before the second respondent claiming 90% of the subsistence allowance. The petitioner appeared before the Labour Officer and contested the matter. The Labour Officer vide order dated 09.10.2014 allowed the petitions and directed the petitioner to pay 90% of the subsistence allowance. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this court. 3. Counsel appearing for the respective parties urged several contentions. 4. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. INDRA BHANU GAUR Vs. COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT OF M.M. DEGREE COLLEGE AND OTHERS (2004) 1 SCC 281. 2. B.D. SHETTY Vs. CEAT LIMITED LAWS (SC) 2001 10 130. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with utmost care. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51914 WP No. 57230 of 2014 6. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the grant of 90% of the subsistence allowances. A good deal of argument is addressed about section 3 of the KPSA Act 1988. The second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1988 provides that where the period of suspension exceeds one hundred and eighty days, the employee shall be entitled to receive, after the said period, a subsistence allowance equal to ninety per cent of the wages which the employee was drawing immediately before his suspension. 7. The petitioner contends that the responsibility for the protraction of the inquiry proceedings rests with the first respondent. In other words, the petitioner asserts that the first respondent is responsible for the slow pace of the inquiry. In contrast, the first respondent alleges that the delay in the inquiry proceedings is attributable to the petitioners. The Labor Officer did not adjudicate on the issue of who is accountable for the protraction of the proceedings. As the impugned order is silent as to the party responsible for the inordinate delay in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51914 WP No. 57230 of 2014 inquiry, the matter requires a remand. Furthermore, the grant of 90% subsistence allowance is not automatic. 8. The issue of responsibility for the delay in concluding the inquiry proceedings constitutes a disputed question of fact which, in the ordinary course, cannot be effectively adjudicated upon by the High Court in the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the matter warrants a remand to the second respondent for a proper determination on this factual matrix. 9. In light of the reasons set forth hereinabove, the Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Labour Officer- the second respondent for fresh consideration on the merits. 10. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 09.10.2014 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-G is quashed. 11. The petitioner and respondent No.1 are represented by their respective counsel. They are directed to appear before - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51914 WP No. 57230 of 2014 the Labour officer on 06.01.2026 at 3.00 p.m. without awaiting any notice from respondent No.2. 12. Needless to observe that the petitioner and first respondent to cooperate with the Labour Officer to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. Because of the disposal of the writ petition, the interim order granted by this court, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, and interim directions, if are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54