WP/4511/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4511 OF 2010 Harun Shafimohammed Mulla ... Petitioner V/s. Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha, Karad, Satara & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr. Dilip Bodake for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.D. Kango, AGP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 7 TH DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. The Petition has been filed against an interim order passed by the Industrial Court, Satara on 18th September, 2008 in Complaint (ULP) No.11 of 2008. The petitioner is an employee of respondent No.1 which is a College affiliated to the Shivaji University, Kolhapur. The petitioner was working as “Lab. Attendant” in the respondent No.1-College governed by the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code Rules, 1984. In a complaint filed before the Industrial Court under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, the petitioner has sought payment of subsistence allowance. That complaint is pending and the interim application seeking a direction against the respondent No.1 to pay subsistence allowance has been rejected by the Industrial Court on several grounds. WP/4511/2010 2 2. It appears from the record that an employee under the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code Rules, 1984, although entitled to subsistence allowance when he is suspended, must give a declaration that he is not employed elsewhere, after which the College is bound to pay subsistence allowance. The record in the present case does not reflect any such declaration having been submitted by the petitioner. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relies on the statement made by the College before the Enquiry Officer that the question of payment of subsistence allowance is pending before the Deputy Director of Education. No such statement has been made before the Industrial Court in the written statement and, therefore, the Industrial Court was only concerned with the pleadings and the record before it. The Industrial Court has for certain reasons not issued a direction for payment of subsistence allowance. In my opinion, these reasons are not sustainable. However, the fact remains that the payment of subsistence allowance is dependent on a declaration being issued by the petitioner to the effect that he is not employed elsewhere. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is entitled to payment of subsistence allowance as a matter of right and no duty is cast on the petitioner to submit any such declaration. However, a perusal of the provisions of the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code Rules, 1984, governing the services of the petitioner indicates that such a declaration is necessary. WP/4511/2010 3 5. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the order dated 18th September, 2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Satara in Complaint (ULP) No. 11 of 2008, which is an interim order. 6. The Writ Petition is rejected. 7. In the event a declaration is submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 to the effect that he is not working elsewhere, the respondent No.1 shall forward a proposal for payment of subsistence allowance within a week thereafter and shall pay subsistence allowance in accordance with law immediately thereafter.