Case: B.D. Shetty and ors Vs. M/s Ceat Ltd. and anr

In brief, the facts giving rise to this appeal are : The appellants are employees of the respondent-company. They resigned from the membership of the Mumbai Shramik Sangh Union, which till then had been the only trade union in the respondent-company and accepted membership of Shramik. Utkarsha Sabha. One Mr. Sayeed Ahmed, an employee of respondent and Vice-President of Mumbai Shramik Sangh made a false complaint on April 23, 1996 on account of union rivalry against the appellants alleging that they had assaulted him; they were arrested and subsequently released on bail; on May 8, 1996, suspension orders were issued to the appellants on account of criminal cases; the appellants replied to the order of suspension denying allegations made against them. On October 7, 1996, the respondent issued charge-sheets to the appellants alleging misconduct under the Model Standing Orders 24(K) and 24(I); the appellants gave replies to the charge-sheets denying the allegations; the domestic inquiry commenced on January 25, 1997; the appellants requested the respondent as well as Inquiry Officer not to proceed with the domestic inquiry till the conclusion of criminal trial pending before the Sessions Court; since the said request was not accepted, the appellants filed complaints before the Labour Court, Thane under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the MRTU & PULP Act). In the said complaint cases, the Labour Court granted interim order on July 23, 1997 staying the domestic enquiry. In the final order passed on December 11, 1997 the Labour Court confirmed the said interim order restraining the respondent from conducting the domestic inquiry till the completion of the criminal trial. Against this order, the respondent has filed Revision Application (ULP) Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 1998 before the Industrial Tribunal, Thane, which areDecember 19, 1997, the respondent reduced the subsistence wages of the appellants from 75% to 50% on account of delay caused by the appellants in the completion of the domestic inquiry. The appellants, in the reply denied that the delay in the domestic proceedings is directly attributable to them and that as per the long-standing practice, they were entitled to full wages after 180 days of suspension which was not paid to them. Thereafter, aggrieved by the rate of reduction of subsistence wages, the appellants filed complaint on December 29, 1997 in the Industrial Court invoking the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act and claimed 100% subsistence wages. The said complaint was dismissed. The appellants filed Writ Petition No. 6208/1998 in the High Court challenging the said order passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint. The same was dismissed by the learned single Judge of the High Court. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants against the said order of the learned single Judge was also dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
In our view, therefore, the provisions of Section 10-A supervene in relation to the payment of subsistence allowance over the provisions of the Model Standing Orders." *We have every good reason to accept the said view. It is plain from the very language of Section 10-A(3) that the words provisions of such other law necessarily refer to the law other than one covered by the very Act and Rules made thereunder. In this view, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. Similarly, his argument that there is a practice with the respondent to make 100% subsistence allowance if inquiry is not completed within 180 days, and as such the appellants are also entitled accordingly cannot be accepted in view of the specific provision contained in Section 10-A of the Act. In view of submissions made by both learned counsels that the revisional authority may be directed to dispose of the revision petitions pending before the Industrial Tribunal within the given time-frame and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we also think it just and appropriate to direct the Industrial Tribunal, Thane, to dispose of the revisions pending before it within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is open to both the parties to urge all the contentions available to them including that there is no need to continue the stay order at this length of time and that no prejudice will be caused to appellants when they have already disclosed their defence in the domesticlearned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that in the event we hold against the respondent and reverse the impugned order, the payment of subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% may be ordered prospectively. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the view we have taken, it is not possible to accept the request made on behalf of the respondent that payment of subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% may be ordered prospectively. In view of the interpretation we have placed on Section 10-A(1)(b) in regard to delay and answered the question in the negative, the impugned order does call for interference. For what is stated above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. We set aside the same and hold that the appellants are entitled to subsistence allowance at the rate of 75%.