C.W.P. No.9923 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.9923 of 1988 Date of Decision:21.10.2008 The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala .....Petitioner Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Varinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 3.5.1988 Annexure P.1. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Bhura Singh- respondent was placed under suspension on 24.11.1982 for committing misconduct. He was charge-sheeted and a departmental inquiry was held. Finally vide order dated 22.5.1984, he was awarded the punishment of censure with a further rider that he will not be paid anything over and above the subsistence allowance already drawn by him and the period of his suspension shall not be treated as period on duty. He filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, `the Act') claiming the arrears of salary for the suspension period which was opposed. Vide impugned order dated 3.5.1988 Annexure P.1, the same was allowed C.W.P. No.9923 of 1988 -2- by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda. None has come forward to argue on behalf of the respondent- Bhura Singh. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court with due care and circumspection. Mr. Varinder Pal Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the workman's right to the relief claimed cannot be determined by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. He further puts that the right of Bhura Singh- respondent to receive the arrears of salary and treating his suspension period as on duty with effect from 24.5.1983 was neither existing nor settled and that being so, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred to hear the application. I have well considered these submissions. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda has observed in the impugned award as under:- “The workman was placed under suspension in contemplation of an enquiry on 24.11.1982 and was reinstated on 28.5.84. During this period, he was paid nothing more than the subsistence allowance. According to Regulation 24 of the P.R.T.C. (Conditions of appointment & Service) Regulations, 1981 (to be referred hereinafter as the Regulations) an employee may be suspended for misconduct pending investigation or enquiry” for not more than six months in any case. The workman claims that the order and action of the C.W.P. No.9923 of 1988 -3- respondent keeping him under suspension for more than six months was without jurisdiction and as such a nullity with the result that he must be deemed to be on duty on the expiry of this period of six months and as such entitled to wages including increments the amount of subsistence allowance. The contention is unanswerable. The legal period of six months of suspension expired on 23.5.83. The workman must be deemed to be on duty w.e.f. 24.5.83 his date of increment was 1.8.82. Under the rules the period of suspension does not account for increment. The next increment, therefore, fell due on 1.2.84. On this presumption, the employer according to the statement of calculations submitted by the Accountant of the respondent he is in arrears of wages to the workman to the extent of Rs.1744.60 Ps. and of bonus in the sum of Rs.582/-. The total amount payable by the employer to the workman is Rs.2326.50 Ps.” To my mind, the afore-extracted observations do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity being in adherence to the rules and regulations. Sequelly, I do not consider it proper to interfere with the impugned award in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is dismissed. October 21, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No