Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1263 of 2008 Kolhapur Zilla Parishad Karmachari Sahakari Society Ltd.,Kolhapur ..Petitioner V/s. Bhagwan Haibatrao Shete ..Respondent Ms.Prabha Badadare for the petitioner CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 25th February , 2008 : 25th February , 2008 : 25th February , 2008 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Complaint(ULP)No.123/2006 filed by the Respondent employee, he had moved an application at exhibit U-13 praying for directions to pay full wages from the date of suspension i.e. 20-3-2005 till the disposal of the complaint or in the alternate to allow him to join his duties. This application was allowed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court at Kolhapur on 4-1-2007 by directing the present petitioner employer to pay full wages to the Complainant every month till disposal of the complaint and arrears of wages from the date of suspension till 31-12-2006 were directed to be deposited in the Court. This order came to be challenged in Revision Application (ULP)No. 19/2007 before the Industrial Court and the same has been dismissed as per 2 the Judgement and order dated 16-1-2008. Hence,this petition. 2. Admittedly, the Complainant has been suspended pending the departmental enquiry w.e.f. 20-3-2005 and the petitioner employer does not have its Certified Standing Orders. The petitioner is not aware whether the Model Standing Orders framed by the State Government and applicable to Cooperative Societies are applicable to its employees. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the order of suspension there was no condition laid down for payment of subsistence allowance and the letter dated 27-3-2005 was issued directing him to remain present at the Head Office failing which he would face administrative action. The Complainant alleged that though he started reporting at the Head office, he was informed subsequently that he should not come to the Head Office and his payment was not released for the period of suspension. The Labour Court, therefore, after hearing both the parties came to the prima-facie finding that though the employer has suspended the employee, he is entitled for subsistence allowance during the suspension period and the rate of subsistence allowance would be as stipulated in the Model Standing Orders and if such Standing Orders are not applicable, full salary will have to be paid. The Labour Court, 3 therefore, allowed the claim of the Complainant and the Industrial Court after hearing both the parties agreed with the reasoning set out by the Labour Court and did not find any case made out to cause interference in the inter-locutory order in its limited jurisdiction in a revision petition. 3. Admittedly, the suspension pending an enquiry is not a punishment and the employer has such a right to keep the employee away from performing his duties till the enquiry instituted against him is completed more so when the charges levelled against the employee are of serious nature and his presence on duty is likely to cause prejudice to a fair and proper departmental enquiry. In the instant case the employee was called upon to report at the Head Office but without performing any duty and when he started reporting for few days, he was informed that he should not come to the Head Office and his subsistence allowance was stopped. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, therefore, did not commit any error to hold that the employer was prima-facie guilty of unfair labour practice by denying the subsistence allowance. The Industrial Court has rightly considered all the aspects and confirmed the view taken by the Labour Court. No case has been made out to interfere 4 with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below under the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]