S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE order dated July 25, 2001, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has been challenged in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the second respondent directed the petitioner to pay to the unofficial respondents herein full wages for the total period of suspension, which was extended for more than one year. In view of the contentions raised in this writ petition for consideration of this Court, it is not necessary for us to refer the factual aspect of the matter.

( 2 ) MR. Kasturi, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, firstly, contended that Section 47 (6) of the andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is ultra vires. He, secondly, contends that by reason of the impugned order dated July 25, 2001, the second respondent misinterpreted and misconstrued the provisions of Section 47 (6) of the Act.

( 3 ) MR. Kasturi, in support of his first contention, submitted that the provisions contained in sub-section (6) of Section 47 of the act must be held to be unreasonable in so far as the period of suspension having been confined only to one year is concerned. Learned counsel would contend that the employer may not be in a position to complete the departmental proceedings within a period of one year for various reasons including non-cooperation on the part of the employee concerned.

( 4 ) OUR attention in this connection has been drawn to the provisions contained in section 10-A (l) (b) of the Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and it is submitted that in terms thereof, subsistence allowance at the rate of 75 per cent, of wages would be paid after a period of one year only in the event of delay in the completion of disciplinary proceedings against the workman is not directly attributed to his conduct.

( 5 ) THE submission of learned counsel cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Statutory provisions of a statute cannot be declared ultra vires having regard to the phraseology used in another statute and only because the provisions of one statute dealing with workmen may contain slightly a different provision. The same, in our considered opinion, would not attract the wrath of Article 14 of the constitution of India. In any event, comparison of the provisions of Section 10-A (l) (b) of the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, with the provisions of Section 47 (6) of the act would clearly go to establish the purport and the object behind the same. Section 10-A of the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, reads thus:"10-A. Payment of subsistence allowance.- (1) Where any workman is suspended by the employer pending investigation or inquiry into complaints or charges of misconduct against him, the employer shall pay to such workman subsistence allowance- (a) at the rate of fifty per cent of the wages which the workman was entitled to immediately preceding the date of such suspension, for the first ninety days of suspension; and (b) at the rate of seventy-five per cent of such wages for the remaining period of suspension if the delay in the completion of disciplinary proceedings against such workman is not directly attributable to the conduct of such workman. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, where provisions relating to payment of subsistence allowance under any other law for the time being in force in any State or more beneficial than the provisions of this section, the provisions of such other law shall be applicable to the payment of subsistence allowance in that State. "

( 6 ) EVEN in terms of the aforementioned provision, subsistence allowance is to be paid at the rate of 50 per cent of the wages for the first ninety days of suspension and, thereafter, at the rate of 75 per cent for the remaining period of suspension, subject, of course, in the event no delay can be attributed on the part of the workman in relation to comple

Click Here to Read the rest of this document