WP/6887/2009 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6887 OF 2009 Shri Santosh Ramnath Ugalmugale ... Petitioner V/s. The Sarchitnis Krantivir Vasantrao Narayanrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.S. Pakale i/b K.J. Phakade for Petitioner Mr.S.D. Rairikar, AGP, for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 11.01.2011 P.C.: 1. The petitioner has preferred the present Petition contending that the order passed by the Industrial Court dismissing his complaint filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act is incorrect. The complaint filed by the petitioner was for a declaration that the respondent institution had committed an unfair labour practice by not paying him subsistence allowance after he was suspended from work. The Industrial Court has held that because the petitioner submitted his letter of resignation on 25.4.2004 which was accepted by a resolution dated 25.11.2004. The Petition would not be entitled to subsistence allowance. It appears that the Industrial Court has relied on Rule 45(3) of the Maharashtra Non- Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code Rules 1984 (for short, `Standard Code Rules’) which reads as under: 89. While under suspension, the Employee shall not be allowed to resign nor shall be granted leave by the Competent Authority.” WP/6887/2009 : 2 : 2. It is true that the competent authority under the aforesaid Rule cannot permit the employee to resign while under suspension. But in the present case the respondent institution has chosen to accept the resignation w.e.f. 25.11.2004. In fact although the petitioner had tendered his resignation on 25.4.2004. The respondent had not accepted the same and instead had issued an order of suspension on 26.5.2004. In these circumstances, it is clear that the resignation submitted by the petitioner on 25.4.2004 was not accepted by the Institution on that day but only on 25.11.2004. 3. The Industrial Court ought to have therefore directed the respondent institution to pay the subsistence allowance for the period from 26.5.2004 on the date on which the suspension order issued till 25.11.2004 i.e. the date on which the letter of resignation was accepted. 4. The impugned order is clearly erroneous inasmuch as the Industrial Court ought to have directed the institution to pay the subsistence allowance for the aforesaid period. The liability of the institution cannot be wished away only by relying on Rule 45(3) of the Standard Code Rules. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 will not be liable to pay this amount but Respondent Nos.1 and 2 will certainly be liable to pay the amount since they had chosen to accept the resignation of the petitioner while he was under suspension. Accordingly the payments shall be made within eight weeks from today. 5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.