Back
1979 Supreme(AP) 394
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SEETHARAM REDDY, C.KONDAIAH, P.A.CHOUDHARY
District Manager, A.P.State Road Transport - Appellant
Versus
Labour Court, Guntur - Respondent
Decided On : 12-04-79
An employee who is acquitted of criminal charges after being suspended from his job is entitled to full remuneration for the period of his suspension, and any law denying such remuneration is unconstitutional and void.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 33-C(2) - SUSPENSION - SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE - ACQUITTAL - RIGHT TO FULL REMUNERATION - CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF LAW DENYING REMUNERATION - ARTICLES 14, 16, 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The contesting second respondent in this writ petition is an Assistant Mechanical Supervisor, working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) Bhimavaram Deport. On 22-10-1974, the second respondent-Supervisor was suspended under Regulation 18 (1) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Employees (C and A) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) by District Manager of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhimvaram Deport, on the basis of an allegation that he was found stealing on 18-10-1974 certain articles belonging to the Corporation. The matter was handed over by the employer-Corporation to the police authorities and the police charged the second respondent before a criminal Court with the commission of offence of theft. But the criminal case ended on 17-3- 1976 in acquittal of the second respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the second respondent was entitled to full remuneration for the period of his suspension, as the order of suspension merged in and automatically ceased to be operative upon the passing of the final order in criminal proceedings. The court further held that any law denying the employee the right to get his full remuneration for the period of his suspension after the order of suspension is merged in the order if his acquittal is unconstitutional and void.
Issues: 1. Whether the second respondent was entitled to full remuneration for the period of his suspension, which ended in his acquittal? 2. Whether a law denying the employee the right to get his full remuneration for the period of his suspension after the order of suspension is merged in the order if his acquittal is unconstitutional and void?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the second respondent was entitled to full remuneration for the period of his suspension, as the order of suspension merged in and automatically ceased to be operative upon the passing of the final order in criminal proceedings. The court reasoned that interim suspension cannot legally be a measure of punishment and that the employee's right to full remuneration for the period of his suspension is part of the right to work which is protected by Articles 12, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The court held that any law denying the employee the right to get his full remuneration for the period of his suspension after the order of suspension is merged in the order if his acquittal is unconstitutional and void. The court reasoned that such a law would be in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee the right to work and prohibit the arbitrary deprivation of property.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Corporation, upholding the order of the Labour Court which had awarded full remuneration to the second respondent for the period of his suspension.
( 1 ) THE contesting second respondent in this writ petition is an Assistant Mechanical Supervisor, working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) Bhimavarm Deport. On 22-10-1974, the second respondent-Supervisor was suspended under Regulation 18 (1) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Employees (C and A) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) by District Manager of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhimvaram Deport, on the basis of an allegation that he was found stealing on 18-10-1974 certain articles belonging to the Corporation. The matter was handed over by the employer-Corporation to the police authorities and the police charged the second respondent before a criminal Court with the commission of offence of theft. But the criminal case ended on 17-3- 1976 in acquittal of the second respondent.
( 2 ) AT the time when the criminal proceedings were still in progress, the employer-Corporation conducted a departmental enquiry and found the second respondent guilty of stealing Corporations properly and on that basis removed him by way of punishment from its service on 12-5-1975. Against that order of removal passed by the Corporation, the second respondent complained to the Labour Court, Guntur, alleging that the punishment of removal from the service of the Corporation was exclusive. The Labour Court, agreeing with that complaint, directed by its Order dated 9-7-1977 reinstatement of the second respondent-Supervisor in the Corporations services but without however back wages. The second respondent was, accordingly reinstated by the Corporation. We need say nothing on that part of the story as that order of reinstatement deals with a period subsequent to 12-5-1975 with which (we) are not concerned in this writ petition.
( 3 ) THE dispute which gives rise to this writ petition is an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act which the second respondent filed subsequent to his reinstatement against the Corporation claiming from the Corporation subsistence allowances for the period of his suspension from 22-10-1974 to 12-5-1975. The Labour Court in its adjudication of the claim of the second respondent under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act held by its Order dated 11-7-1977 that the second respondent was entitled to the payment of subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension from 22-10-1974 to the date of his removal on 12-5-1975 and accordingly, directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 1,201. 21 to the second respondent-Supervisor. In this writ petition the Corporation assails the correctness o this order of the Labour Court.
( 4 ) THE case of the second respondent-Supervisor is that his conduct which gave rise to his suspension on 22-10-1974 ended not in his conviction but in his acquittal. The Supervisor, therefore, contends that judged from the point of view of the acquittal, his order of suspension must be deemed to be unjustified and held unlawful. Therefore, for the period for which he was unjustifiably prevented from working for his employer, the employer must bear the responsibility and pay him his remuneration. In this view, the second respondent contends the order of the Labour Court must be held to be right.
( 5 ) ON the other hand, the Corporations case is that the second respondent was suspended on 22-10-1974 pending investigation into a criminal case and therefore, the order of suspensions falls under Regulation 18 (1) (b ). The Corporation therefore argues that as Regulation 20 (3) (a) specifically denies the right of an employee suspended under Regulation 18 (1) (b) to claim subsistence allowance the Labour Courts decision must be held to be wrong as being clearly contrary to Regulation 20 (3) (a) by which the second respondent is bound.
( 6 ) WHEN this Writ Petition first came up before a Division Bench for hearing, it was argued for the
