S.Saghir Ahmad, J.

(1) LEAVE granted in all Special Leave Petitions.

(2) THE appellants were the employees of the Swatantra Bharat Mill against whom charge-sheets were issued in the year 1986 and they were subsequently suspended.

(3) SINCE an industrial dispute was already pending before the Industrial tribunal vide Delhi Administration Notification No. F- 24(798)/94-Lab dated 1.4.86, an application was filed by the Management under Section 33( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for permission to dismiss the employees on completion of enquiry. This application was opposed by the appellants who filed objections and claimed that they were entitled to be paid Subsistence Allowance during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings for the period of suspension. On this, the tribunal framed the following preliminary issue:- "At what rate, if any, the Management is to pay the subsistence allowance to the workman,"

(4) THE Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Tis Hazari, Delhi, relying upon the decision of this court in The Management, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi & Ors. vs. Hotel Workers Union, AIR 1959 SC 1342, dismissed the objections of the appellants and held that they were not entitled to any Subsistence Allowance. The appellants thereafter filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of Delhi which were dismissed by the impugned judgment reading as under:- "In view of the decision of the larger Bench of the Supreme court in the case of The Management, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi & Ors. vs. Hotel Workers Union reported as AIR 1959 SC 1342, we are not inclined to interfere in this petition. Dismissed."

(5) IT appears that the decision of this court in Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki vs. Presiding Officer & Anr., (1986)3 SCC 131 = 1986(2) SCR 1059 = AIR 1986 SC 1168, was cited before the High court, but it did not follow the decision and preferred to follow the Judgment in Hotel Imperials case (supra).

(6) THIS court, while entertaining these appeals had passed the following order on 2/1/1996- "In view of the fact that the judgment in Hotel Imperials case was rendered by a three Judge bench, we consider it appropriate that these petitions be listed before a three Judge bench. Appropriate order from the Honble the chief justice may be obtained in this behalf. In the event the special leave petitions cannot be listed within the next two weeks, the application for interim stay may be put up before the three Judge Bench within that period."

(7) IT is in these circumstances that the matter has come up before us.

(8) IN Hotel Imperials case (supra), this Court had laid down as under:- "We have, therefore, to see whether it would be reasonable for an Industrial Tribunal where it is dealing with a case to which Section 33 of the Act applies, to imply a term in the contract giving power to the master to suspend a servant when the master has come to the conclusion after necessary enquiry that the servant has committed misconduct and ought to be dismissed, but cannot do so because of Section 33. It is urged on behalf of the respondents that there is nothing in the language of Section 33 to warrant the conclusion that when an employer has to apply under it for permission he can suspend the workmen concerned. This argument, however, begs the question because if there were any such provision in Section 33, it would be an express provision in the statute authorising such suspension and no further question of an implied term would arise. What we have to see is whether in the absence of an express provision to that effect in Section 33, it will be reasonable for an Industrial tribunal in these extraordinary circumstances arising out of the effect of Section 33 to imply a term in the contract giving power to the employer to suspended the contract of employment, thus relieving himself of the obligation to pay wages and relieving the servant of the corresponding obligation to render se