An employee who is placed under suspension without any charges being framed or enquiry being held is entitled to full salary during the suspension period if there is no term in the contract of employment limiting the scale of pay during that period.

JUDGMENT :

JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:— The Amarthalur Co-operative Rural Bank, Ltd., represented by its president is the petitioner. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Labour Court, respondent 2 herein, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 116 of 1974, which was filed under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by respondent 1 herein.

2. A few facts that are necessary to appreciate the rival contentions have to be stated. Respondent 1 joined in the service of the petitioner-bank, as a clerk in the year 1961 and he became the secretary in 1965. He was placed under suspension with effect from 15 June, 1970, pending certain allegations. It appears that no charges were framed and no enquiry was conducted. He remained under suspension till December 1974. He filed the application under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court for full salary of fifty-four months amounting to Rs. 14,850. In the said application the petitioner claimed that he is entitled to the salary for all those months as he was not paid any salary during that period and as no charges were framed against him nor any enquiry was held. That petition was resisted by the management mainly on three grounds:

The first ground is, that the employee is not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act;

the second ground is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim arising out of the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act; and lastly, that an application under S. 33C(2) is not maintainable.

It appears that no evidence was adduced by either side. The Labour Court after referring to the provisions of S. 64(1) of the Shops and Establishments Act proceeded to consider whether there was sufficient material to show that the employee was not a workman. The Labour Court ultimately held that from the fact that the employee was the secretary of the bank and that he was discharging the managerial and administrative functions it cannot be inferred that he is not a workman. The Labour Court also pointed out that the management did not by adducing sufficient evidence prove that the employee does not come under a category of workman. Ultimately it observed thus:

“In the absence of such proof it has to be held that the petitioner is a workman and he would not come under any category of the persons employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. 500.”

Thus the first contention of the management was repelled.

3. As regards the second contention the management contended that all claims arising under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act relating to the wages must go before the authority appointed under S. 48 of the Act and that the Labour Court is not a proper forum to entertain such claims. This contention was naturally rejected because the Labour Court had already reached the conclusion that the employee was a workman and as such he could approach the Labour Court.

4. Then coming to the question whether an application under S. 33C(2) was maintainable or not it is pointed out by the Labour Court that under the contract of employment an employee who its placed under suspension is entitled to full salary if there is no term limiting the scale of pay during that period and accordingly allowed the application filed by the employee. It is this order that is impugned in this writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the same contentions before us that were raised before the Labour Court. He contends that the Labour Court has erred in holding that respondent 1 employee comes within the meaning of workman. According to the learned counsel respondent 1 was the secretary of the bank and was discharging the duties which are in the nature of managerial. We cannot go into this question as it is a disputed question of fact. When the Labour Court after examining the material