Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mahinder Ram vs. Commandant General, Punjab Home Guards and others, CWP-11357-2021 (O&M) addressed the issue of denying subsistence allowance to an employee who had worked continuously for 27 years, because he was not a permanent or regular employee. The Court held that such a denial violated Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing that the rights afforded to workers under the law cannot be contingent on their employment status (whether permanent or temporary). In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur [(2011) 6 SCC 584], which affirmed that all workers, regardless of whether they are casual, temporary, or part-time, are entitled to the safeguards and protections under Section 25B and Section 25F of the ID Act. The High Court therefore ruled that the denial of subsistence allowance to such employees is unconstitutional and directed the employer to pay 50% (fifty percent) of the employee’s salary as subsistence allowance.
Also read : Advocate can represent employer before Labour Court as an officer of Employer’s association: M.P. HC
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
