ORDER :

Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - Heard Sri. P. Vilaskumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. D. P. Ambekar, the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Second Division Assistant in the second respondent college and later he was promoted as First Division Assistant. Based on certain complaints against the petitioner, departmental enquiry was held and he was dismissed from the service. The order of dismissal was subject matter before the Labour Court in KID.No.81/2001 before the Labour Court at Bijapur.

3. As required under law, a preliminary issue No.1 was framed by the Labour Court relating to the legality of departmental enquiry held against the petitioner. The Labour Court has given a finding that the enquiry was not fair and proper and the opportunity was given to the respondent employer to lead evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner. Thereafter, the evidence was recorded before the Labour Court and the Labour Court has upheld the order of dismissal. This order of Labour Court is called in question by the petitioner.

4. Sri. P. Vilaskumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in his fairness submits that he does not press the grounds other than the ground relating to subsistence allowance to be paid to the petitioner in view of the finding on preliminary issue No.1 by the Labour Court.

5. For this reason, the other contentions raised by the petitioner an not considered by this Court.

6. The Court has examined the claim of the petitioner whether he is entitled to applicable subsistence allowance to be paid to him from the date of dismissal by the employer till the date of award passed by the Labour Court.

7. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that after framing of preliminary issue No.1 relating to the validity of legality of the department enquiry, the Labour Court has given a finding that the department enquiry was not fair and proper. Thus, The petitioner should be treated as under deemed suspension, from the date of dismissal till the date of the order of the Labour Court, as such, he is entitled to the benefit under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Employment (standing orders) Act, 1946 (for short 'of the Act').

8. In support of his contention he would also place reliance on the Division Bench order of this Court in the case of the Divisional Controller NEKRTC v. Ramachandra s/o Keshavrao in W.A.No.10260/2011 (L-KSRTC) dated 18.07.2012.

9. Sri. D. P. Ambekar, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is found guilty of the charges levelled against him. The finding of the disciplinary authority is confirmed by the Labour Court in the final analysis on considering the materials on record as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit the under 10 (1) of the Act. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the concept of deemed suspension cannot be made applicable in this case, as both the disciplinary authority as well as the Labour Court have found the petitioner guilty.

10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar.

11. It is to be noticed that the order holding the petitioner guilty was called in question before the Labour Court. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue relating to procedure adopted in the disciplinary enquiry. Said issue on consideration on relevant materials on record is answered in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the opportunity was given to the respondents management employer to prove the charges against the petitioner.

12. In terms of the ratio laid down in the case