1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1039 OF 1991 The Chief Executive (Administration) } Maharashtra State Farming Corporation, } S. No. 270, Bhamburde, } Senapati Bapat Marg, Pune. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S Shri. M.S.Parmane } Age : Major, Occ. } R/o : Maharashtra State Farming } Corporation, Sakarwadi, Tq. Kopargaon, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } .... RESPONDENT Mr. A.C.Darandale, Advocate holding for Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.V.Deshmukh ,Advocate holding for Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent no. . WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1040 OF 1991 The Chief Executive (Administration) } Maharashtra State Farming Corporation, } S. No. 270, Bhamburde, } Senapati Bapat Marg, Pune. } .... PETITIONER 2 V E R S U S Shri. D.M.Kale } Age : Major, Occ. } R/o : Maharashtra State Farming } Corporation, Sakarwadi, Tq. Kopargaon, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } .... RESPONDENT Mr. A.C.Darandale, Advocate holding for Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.V.Deshmukh ,Advocate holding for Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent no. . CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 24/02/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By these petitions, the petitioner impugns common Judgment rendered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in two ( 2 ) complaint cases bearing U.L.P. Nos. 237 of 1986 and 238 of 1986. The Industrial Court partly allowed both the complaint cases filed by the respondents. 2. The respondents were employees of the petitioner – Maharashtra State Farming Corporation ( For short, ‘ M.S.F.C. ’ ). The 3 respondents were served with charge sheets alleging that they were guilty of certain misconduct, negligence, insubordination and dereliction in duty. The respondents were suspended during pendency of disciplinary enquiry against them. They had filed reply to the show cause notices served on them. It is undisputed fact that they were suspended for period of three ( 3 ) months between 9/7/1986 to 9/10/1986. They were not paid salary and allowances for the relevant period. 3. The respondents filed complaint cases alleging that they were not allowed to work since 9/7/1986 and were not paid their due salaries. They submitted that the disciplinary enquiry commenced against them was actuated by malafides. They sought quashing of the disciplinary enquiry. 4. The petitioner resisted the complaint cases. It was contended that the respondents were charge sheeted on the basis of material gathered against them. It was further contended that the respondents were guilty of insubordination, misconduct and dereliction in duty. It was contended by the petitioner that in order to avoid penalty, which was likely to be imposed as a result of the disciplinary enquiry, the complaint cases were filed by the respondents. Consequently, the petitioner had sought dismissal of the complaint cases. 4 5. It appears that the disciplinary enquiries were completed and that by order dated 18/3/1987, the respondents were directed to be suspended for the period of two ( 2 ) days as a measure of penalty as contemplated under the model standing orders for workmen doing manual or technical work. Needless to say, their main relief about quashing of the disciplinary enquiry was not considered by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court allowed the applications to the extent of the relief regarding the payment of salary for the suspension period of three ( 3 ) months. The part of the complaint cases seeking relief of reinstatement was allowed vide the impugned common Judgment and part of the complaint cases was not considered as per the request of the respondents ( complainants ). 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The short question for consideration is: Whether the payment of salaries for the period of suspension could be directed under the impugned common Judgment ? 8. The learned Member of the Industrial Court referred to clause ( 5 ) of the Model Standing Order No. 27 ( For short, ‘ M.S.O. ’ ). The learned Member held that to refuse payment of the salary to the employee for period of suspension, even if a minor punishment like warning or censure is given after conclusion of the enquiry, was not 5 contemplated under the Bombay Industrial Regulations Act or under the M.S.O. or under the certified standing order. The learned Member of the Industrial Court observed, : “ the latter part of the clause ( 5 ) of the Standing Order No. 27 can not be read as giving authority to the State Farming Corporation to withhold the entire salary of the employee till the enquiry is completed and the result is declared. It also can not be interpreted to hold that the employee will loose his salary of the entire period of interim suspension if he is no exonerated from the allegations made against him ”. 9. It would be useful to refer to clause 25 of the M.S.O. for workmen doing manual or technical work as enumerated in Schedule I of the Bombay Industrial Regulations ( Standing Order ) Rules. Clause 25 (i) reads as follows : “ 25 (1) A workman guilty of misconduct may be, (a) warned or censured, or (b) fined subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, or ( c) suspended by an order in writing signed by the Manager for a period not exceeding four days, or (d) dismissed without notice. ” “ Clause ( 5 ) : A workman against whom any action is proposed to be taken under sub-clause (b), (c) or (d) of 6 clause (1) may be suspended pending the inquiry of for the period, if any, allowed to him for giving his explanation. The order of suspension may take effect immediately on its communication to the workman ”. “ (5-A) : Subject to the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, a workman who is placed under suspension under sub-clause (5) shall, during the period of such suspension, be paid a subsistence allowance at the following rates namely : (i) xxxxxxxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxxxxxx (iii) xxxxxxxxxxx (iv) If as a result of the inquiry held or explanation tendered, it is decided not to take any action against the workman under clause (1), the workman shall be deemed to have been on duty and shall be entitled to full wages minus such subsistence allowance as he may have already drawn and to all other privileges for the full period of suspension ”. 7 10. The plain reading of clause (25) of the M.S.O. for workmen doing manual or technical work, would make it manifestly clear that the full wages would be admissible to the workman for period of suspension only and only if no action is taken against him. In other words, if he is exonerated from the charges, he will be entitled to receive the full salary for the period of suspension. However, he will not be entitled to full salary for such period if either of the action contemplated in sub clause (a) to (d) of clause (25) (i) is taken against him. Needless to say, even if minor penalty like warning is imposed, then also the action being stigmatic in nature, it would deprive the workman from full salary for the period of suspension. The respondents were admittedly not given clean chit after the disciplinary enquiry. They did not challenge the adverse action taken against them as a result of the disciplinary enquiry. They meekly suffered the suspension of two ( 2 ) days which was penal in nature as provided under sub clause (c) of clause 25 (i) of the M.S.O. for workmen doing manual or technical work. The interpretation of clause 25 of the M.S.O. is not properly done by the Industrial Court. Obviously, if the respondents wanted to lay their hands on the full salary for the relevant period of suspension, they ought to have been given clean chit after the disciplinary enquiry or they ought to have challenged the result of the disciplinary enquiry as could be permissible under the law. May be it was minor penalty, yet, it caused stigma and, therefore, full payment of the salaries could not have been ordered. It is nobody’s case that they were not paid any suspension allowance during 8 the period of suspension. Under these circumstances, they were not entitled to claim more than the suspension allowance. The impugned Judgment is unsustainable in the eye of law due to faulty interpretation of clause (25 ) of the M.S.O. for workmen doing manual or technical work. The respondents have already retired from the services and, therefore, it will not be proper to mulct them by imposing costs. In the result, the petitioners are allowed. The impugned Judgment is set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE knp/WP 1039,1040.1991