IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.01.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.16661 of 2000 S.Shanmugam ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli. 2.The Divisional Engineer (Gel.) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thennur, Tiruchirapalli -17. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle (North) Mannapuram, Trichy -2. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in it order in C.P.No.29/96 dated 23.02.99 quash the same and direct respondents 2 and 3 to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.50,067.78 as claimed in C.P.No.29/96. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaidyanathan for TNEB O R D E R The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Disciplinary action was initiated and a final show cause notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner moved the Civil Court challenging the show cause notice and the disciplinary proceedings in O.S.No.1301 of 1984. The Civil Court decreed the suit. Subsequently, the attempt by the respondent - Electricity Board to challenge the same in A.S.No.325 of 1980 had also failed. Thereafter, the petitioner was restored to service for one day and subsequently, he was once again placed under suspension. 2. It is now stated that the enquiry had ended against the petitioner and he was also dismissed from service. His further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ statutory appeal also failed. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the first respondent Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in C.P.No.29 of 1996 claiming full wages for the earlier period of suspension. The Labour Court ordered notice to the Electricity Board. A counter statement was filed resisting the claim made by the petitioner. 3. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the petitioner, 12 documents were filed and marked as Exs.P1 to P12. On the side of the respondent -Board, the decree passed by the Sub-Court was filed as Ex.R1. While the petitioner had examined himself as P.W.1, on the side of the respondent-Board one Mullainathan was examined as R.W.1. 4. The Labour Court held that the Civil Court decree did not direct any payment to the workman and that the regulation relied on by the petitioner namely Regulation 56 will not apply to the case of the petitioner. Therefore, in the light of the same, the claim petition was rejected. As against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Labour Court is liable to be interfered with by this Court . 5. Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board brought to the notice of this Court Regulation 56 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation and more particularly referred to Note 4 appended therein, which is as follows: "Note: 4 When an employee placed under suspension and subsequently dismissed is reinstated in pursuance of an order passed by the Board or other competent authority and if he is again placed under suspension immediately from the date of such reinstatement, the second suspension cannot be treated as continuance to the first one. Subsistence allowance has, therefore, to be allowed at the rate of one half of average of half pay for the first year during the second period of suspension also. The question as to how the first period of suspension should be treated would be decided only after the employee's case is finally disposed of and hence the difficulty arises as to how the average pay should be calculated for the purpose of fixing the subsistence allowance during the second period of suspension. In such case, the average pay adopted during the first period of suspension may be adopted during the second period of suspension also." 6. In the light of the above, the question of the petitioner claiming full wages without reference to the subsequent punishment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ imposed on him cannot be sustained. The order of the Labour Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Hence, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli. 2.The Divisional Engineer (Gel.) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thennur, Tiruchirapalli -17. 3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle (North) Mannapuram, Trichy -2. 1 cc to Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, Advocate, Sr.No.3947 W.P.No.16661 of 2000 MDR {CO} TP/1.2.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/