IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 5067 of 1999 Between: 1 A.P.SR.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Zaheerabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 G.Mallesham, S/o. Yellaiah, Ramakkapet, Dubbaka Mandal, Medak District. 2 Labour Court-II, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of Writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order Dt. 19.11.1997 made in m.P.No:23 of 1995, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and quash the same as being illegal without jurisdiction and invalid. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri V.NARSIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5067 of 1999 ORDER: The APSRTC is before this Court aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in M.P.No.23 of 1995, dated 19.11.1997. 2. The 1st respondent was appointed as a daily-wage conductor on 25.05.1991. While he was conducting a bus on 21.10.1993, a check was exercised and, on noticing some irregularities, he was kept on put-off duty on 22.10.1993. The 1st respondent was subsequently removed from service on 02.09.1994. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.1993, keeping him on put-off duty, the 1st respondent filed M.P.No.23 of 1995 claiming wages for the period of put-off duty at Rs.52/- per day, for 315 days from 22.10.1993 to 02.09.1994. Against the order removing him from service, he preferred I.D.No.100 of 1995 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. On 03.11.1997, the Labour Court passed an Award directing his reinstatement. M.P.No.23 of 1995 was allowed, by order dated 19.11.1997, aggrieved by which the present writ petition is filed. 3. In its order in M.P.No.23 of 1995, the Labour Court observed that the workman, even if he be working on daily wages, nonetheless continued to be an employee of the Corporation; that since he was kept on put-off duty from 22.10.1993 to 02.09.1994, for 315 days pending disciplinary proceedings, an employer- employee relationship existed during the said period and, as such, the workman was entitled to be paid wages at the rate of Rs.52 per day for 315 days. Accordingly, the petitioner herein was directed to pay the 1st respondent a sum of Rs.16,980/-. 4. Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, would rely on REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, NELLORE v. SK.GULAM RASOOL[1], wherein a Division Bench of this Court, relying on an earlier order of another Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.218 of 1993, noted that the rules did not provide for placing an employee on put-off duty. The Division Bench, however, observed that since the rules did not provide for “put off duty”, and only provide for suspension during the pendency of the departmental enquiry, put-off duty should be construed as suspension. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner therein was not being paid any particular scale of pay, he was only paid as and when required and that it would be difficult to ascertain at what rates the allowance should be paid during the period of suspension, the Division Bench, while allowing the Corporation to make rules in that behalf, observed that till rules were framed the employee should be paid at least one-half of the basic of the scale which was available for the post against which such employee was working before he was kept on put off duty or he should be paid wages for 15 days for every month during the period of suspension. 5. Unlike in the case before the Division Bench, in the present case, there is no difficulty with regards ascertainment of the amount payable to the 1st respondent since the said amount has been quantified and computed by the Labour Court in its order in M.P.No.23 of 1995. 6. In Writ Appeal No.218 of 1993, another casual employee was kept on put off duty. This Court, in its order in W.P.No.14816 of 1991 dated 29.11.1991, held that there was no provision to pass an order of put-off duty. The learned Single Judge further rejected the contention of the Corporation that the impugned order should be treated as an order of suspension holding that an illegal order could not be regularized by an order of Court. The learned Single Judge left it open to the Corporation to pass any orders in accordance with law pursuant to the disciplinary enquiry which was either in contemplation or was pending. Aggrieved thereby, the Corporation preferred Writ Appeal No.218 of 1993 and the Division Bench held that there was an essential difference between put off duty and an order of suspension since in the case of the first no interim payment pending the enquiry was guaranteed whereas in the case of suspension, subsistence allowance had necessarily to be paid and the casual employee could not have been merely ordered to be kept on put off duty. The appeal preferred by the Corporation was dismissed. 7. In W.P.No.34628 of 1998 and batch, a Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 28.10.2003, affirmed the order of the Labour Court passed in proceedings under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, relying on the earlier Division Bench Judgments in Writ Appeal No.1751 of 2000, dated 18.01.2001 and Writ Appeal No.218 of 1993, dated 07.08.1995. 8. In B.A. KUMAR v. A.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD[2] (Judgment in Writ Appeal No.1751 of 2000), the Division Bench held that an employer could only suspend the employee in terms of the rules, for which the employee would have been entitled to claim subsistence allowance or the employer may invoke its inherent jurisdiction to suspend the employee by not taking any work from him in which event he would be entitled to the full salary. The Division Bench directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made by them. 9. It is not in dispute that the rules do not provide for placing an employee on “put off duty”. While an employer has the inherent power to place an employee under suspension and pass orders keeping him away from the work place, it is only if the rules specifically provide for the manner in which and the extent to which payment should be made during the period of suspension, can payment of amounts to an employee be restricted in terms of the said rules. The payment to be made during the period of suspension is ordinarily prescribed by rules and is called the subsistence allowance, that is an allowance enabling an employee to subsist during the period of suspension. Even in the absence of any specific rules in this regard, an employer has the inherent power to place an employee under suspension. Where such inherent power of suspension is exercised by the employer, unless there are specific rules in this regard, the employee is entitled to full wages drawn by him as if he was in services even during the period of his suspension. {CAPT.PAUL ANTHONY vs. BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD.) (1999) 3 SCC 679}. Admittedly, there were no rules during the relevant time in the Corporation for placing casual employees under suspension much less for payment of subsistence allowance. The rules, then in force, did not admittedly provide for placing an employee under “put off duty”. Even assuming that placing the employee on “put off duty” is a power exercised by the employer de hors the regulations, the employee is entitled to be paid full wages during the period he was kept on “put off duty”. The Labour Court has rightly held that the 1st respondent-employee was entitled for payment of daily wages at Rs.52/- for the period he was kept under put-off duty. Against orders of the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts, the jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and not appellate and, except where the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court are perverse, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the matter. 10. Viewed from any angle, the order of the Labour Court does not necessitate interference. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 19.06.2008 GS [1] 2003 (2) ALT 376 [2] 2001 (1) ALD 553 (DB)