CWP-24041 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Amit Garg The Labour Inspector and others CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. (Annexure P application preferred by the petitioner for grant of has been writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 2. following extracted order: 24041-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Amit Garg Versus The Labour Inspector and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Ms. Divya Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Anita Kumari, Advocate, Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) Fetching grievance from the order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Labour Inspector, Hisar, vide which, application preferred by the petitioner for grant of dismissed, he has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. This Court, vide order dated 20.08.2025, had passed the following extracted order:- “1. The petitioner’s application for grant of subsistence allowance has not been decided on merits by the respondent No.1, which has caused pain to the petitioner and propelled him to institute the present writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was suspended way back on 29.08.2018, however, till date, no IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24041-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.09.2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Ms. Divya Arora, Advocate, Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Ms. Anita Kumari, Advocate, Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, Advocate, Fetching grievance from the order dated 22.07.2025 the Labour Inspector, Hisar, vide which, application preferred by the petitioner for grant of subsistence allowance dismissed, he has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. This Court, vide order dated 20.08.2025, had passed the 1. The petitioner’s application for grant of subsistence allowance has not been decided on merits by the respondent No.1, which has caused pain to the and propelled him to institute the present writ 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was suspended way back on 29.08.2018, however, till date, no 5 s Fetching grievance from the order dated 22.07.2025 the Labour Inspector, Hisar, vide which, allowance dismissed, he has approached this Court by filing the instant This Court, vide order dated 20.08.2025, had passed the 1. The petitioner’s application for grant of subsistence allowance has not been decided on merits by the respondent No.1, which has caused pain to the and propelled him to institute the present writ 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was suspended way back on 29.08.2018, however, till date, no AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-24041 3. appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4. 4. that he is not being paid subsistence allowance by the respondent Management 5. that Labour Inspector, behalf of the Management that the issue of suspension allowance be decided after completion of inquiry, has dism preferred by the petitioner. the present case, t 24041-2025 -2- subsistence allowance has been paid to him. The respondent No.1, instead of deciding his applic (supra) on merits, dismissed the same merely on the assertions of the Company that, till the time enquiry of the Company is not concluded, the Company would not take any decision regarding grant of suspension/subsistence allowance. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. 5. Subject to requisite process fee being furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner, notice be issued to the respondents No.2 to 4. 6. Dasti also. 7. List on 11.09.2025, in the urgent list. 8. It is made clear that, on the subsequent date of hearing, no request for adjournment would be entertained on behalf of either side.” In pursuance thereof, Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4. As narrated above, the limited grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being paid subsistence allowance by the respondent Management. What emerges from a bare perusal of the impugned order that Labour Inspector, merely on the basis of the statement suffered on behalf of the Management that the issue of suspension allowance be decided after completion of inquiry, has dism preferred by the petitioner. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is constrained, but subsistence allowance has been paid to him. The respondent No.1, instead of deciding his application ) on merits, dismissed the same merely on the assertions of the Company that, till the time enquiry of the Company is not concluded, the Company would not take any decision regarding grant of suspension/subsistence allowance. 4. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. 5. Subject to requisite process fee being furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner, notice be issued to the respondents No.2 to 4. 7. List on 11.09.2025, in the urgent list. 8. It is made clear that, on the subsequent date of hearing, no request for adjournment would be entertained on behalf of either side.” , Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4. s narrated above, the limited grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being paid subsistence allowance by the respondent- perusal of the impugned order is, on the basis of the statement suffered on behalf of the Management that the issue of suspension allowance would be decided after completion of inquiry, has dismissed the application Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of constrained, but to observe that the subsistence allowance has been paid to him. The ation ) on merits, dismissed the same merely on the assertions of the Company that, till the time enquiry of the Company is not concluded, the Company would not take any decision regarding grant of 4. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana, waives 5. Subject to requisite process fee being furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner, notice be issued to 8. It is made clear that, on the subsequent date of hearing, no request for adjournment would be , Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. However, none has put s narrated above, the limited grievance of the petitioner is - , on the basis of the statement suffered on would issed the application Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-24041 subsistence to enable the of of full salary to take into consideration the impugned order is remitted to respondent No.1, to decide the application of the petitioner accordance with law. 6. adequate speaking subsistence copy of this order. 7. disposed of. 11.09.202 Ak Sharma 24041-2025 -3- subsistence allowance is granted during the suspension period only, to enable the official/officer under suspension, to subsist in the absence of full salary. In the matter at hand, respondent No.1 has miserably failed to take into consideration the abovesaid underlying factor. impugned order, being unsustainable, is set as is remitted to the Labour Inspector, Labour Department, Hisar respondent No.1, to decide the application of the petitioner accordance with law. Needless to assert that respondent No.1, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, shall pass a order, with regard to the entitlement of petitioner for subsistence allowance, within a month from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the abovesaid observations, disposed of. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable allowance is granted during the suspension period only, so as ficial/officer under suspension, to subsist in the absence respondent No.1 has miserably failed abovesaid underlying factor. Therefore, the is set aside. Resultantly, the matter the Labour Inspector, Labour Department, Hisar- respondent No.1, to decide the application of the petitioner afresh, in Needless to assert that respondent No.1, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, shall pass a order, with regard to the entitlement of petitioner for allowance, within a month from the receipt of a certified With the abovesaid observations, the instant writ petition is (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No so as ficial/officer under suspension, to subsist in the absence respondent No.1 has miserably failed the he matter - afresh, in Needless to assert that respondent No.1, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, shall pass a order, with regard to the entitlement of petitioner for allowance, within a month from the receipt of a certified the instant writ petition is AMIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document