WP/9161/2010 a/w ors. : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9161 OF 2010 Miraj Hindu Dharmashala Sanitorium Trust & Os. ... Petitioners V/s. Jitendra Ashok Kamble ... Respondent a/w WRIT PETITION NO.9162 OF 2010 Miraj Hindu Dharmashala Sanitorium Trust & Os. ... Petitioners V/s. Subhash Bacchu Marudha ... Respondent a/w WRIT PETITION NO.9163 OF 2010 Miraj Hindu Dharmashala Sanitorium Trust & Os. ... Petitioners V/s. Rekha Subhash Marudha ... Respondent a/w WRIT PETITION NO.9164 OF 2010 Miraj Hindu Dharmashala Sanitorium Trust & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Prakash S. Dhangade ... Respondent a/w WRIT PETITION NO.9165 OF 2010 WP/9161/2010 a/w ors. : 2 : Miraj Hindu Dharmashala Sanitorium Trust & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Rahul Ravindra Gaikwad ... Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO.9166 OF 2010 Miraj Hindu Dharmashala Sanitorium Trust & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Sawanta Gunda Mali ... Respondent Mr.Umesh Mankapure for Petitioners Mr.M.S. Topkar for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2011 P.C.: 1. The Petitioners have approached this Court against the interim order passed by the Industrial Court directing them to pay suspension allowance or subsistence allowance to the complainants i.e. the respondents in these petitions. 2. The workmen in these petitions were suspended from service on 24.12.2008 for various acts of misconduct. A chargesheet was issued to the workmen on 29.1.2009. The first date of enquiry was 7.4.2010. The workmen submitted letters to the enquiry officer indicating that it was difficult for them to attend the enquiry in view of the fact that they had not been paid subsistence allowance and the enquiry was WP/9161/2010 a/w ors. : 3 : being held in Sangli instead of Miraj. On 7.4.2010, the enquiry was adjourned to 15.4.2010. It appears that no proceedings were held on that date or any date thereafter. The order of the Industrial Court has been passed on 29.4.2010 in the complaints which were filed in 2009. 3. It has been submitted by Mr.Mankapure appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners being a trust, should not be directed to pay the workmen full wages as subsistence allowance. He concedes that there are no rules governing the service conditions of the workmen employed by the Trust. He also accepts the fact that the Model Standing Orders are not applicable to the workmen engaged by the trust as the strength of the workmen is less than 10. 4. It is now well settled that if there are no Rules empowering the employer to suspend an employee, the employer if passes an order of suspension must pay full wages to the employer. In my opinion, the Industrial Court has not committed any error by directing payment of subsistence allowance on the basis of full wages. 5. The contention of Mr.Mankapure that it was the workmen who had failed to attend the enquiry and the delay was therefore attributable to the workmen cannot be accepted. The first sitting of the enquiry took place about one year and three months after the chargesheet was issued. Even after the first date no meetings for the enquiry have been held. In these circumstances, in my view, prima facie, the delay in conducting the enquiry cannot be attributed to the employees. 6. Writ Petitions are therefore rejected.