Advocates:
H.S.PARIHAR, HARISH N.SLAVE, K.N.SINGH, K.T.ANANTHARAMAN

The court upheld the following key points:

1. The regulations governing suspension and employment conditions vest exclusive authority in the bank to determine whether a period of absence due to arrest or detention should be treated as on duty, on leave, or on extraordinary leave, and this authority cannot be challenged (!) .

2. During a period of suspension, an employee who is arrested or detained is not automatically entitled to full pay and allowances unless the competent authority explicitly treats the period as on duty and the employee is acquitted of all blame or satisfies the authority that he was not guilty of improper conduct resulting in detention (!) .

3. The period of absence due to arrest or detention, when not followed by discharge or termination, is to be treated as extraordinary leave, and the employee is not entitled to salary or allowances for that period unless the authority specifically rules otherwise (!) .

4. The power to decide how the period of suspension is to be treated and whether full pay and allowances are payable rests solely with the employer (the bank), and this power cannot be challenged (!) .

5. The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to decide whether the employee was entitled to full pay and allowances during the suspension period; such questions are within the domain of the employer’s authority (!) .

6. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Labour Court was set aside, affirming the bank’s right to treat the period of suspension as it deemed fit under the regulations (!) (!) .

In summary, the court upheld the principle that the employer has the sole authority to determine the treatment of suspension periods, and employees are not automatically entitled to full pay during suspension unless explicitly granted by the employer’s decision.