JUDGMENT - Smt. NISHITA MHATRE, J.:---These three petitions challenge the order of the Industrial Court whereby the petitioners were directed to pay subsistence allowance to the respondents, who were admittedly Badli workers, in accordance with section 10-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

2. The undisputed facts in these petitions are as follows :

The respondents were 'Badli' workmen employed as drivers with the petitioners. Their names were maintained in the register of Badli-Hangami-Rozandari workmen. On account of certain acts of misconduct, they were charge-sheeted and an enquiry was instituted against them. While the enquiry was being conducted against the respondent-workmen, the petitioners did not give them any work and a 'no duty order' was issued to them. The workmen filed a complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 contending that issuance of 'no duty order' amounted to suspension from work and therefore, they were entitled to subsistence allowance for the period during which they were not given any work by the petitioner-employer.

3. The Industrial Court, on the basis of the contentions raised before it, held that the petitioner-employer was guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act) and directed the employer to pay to the workmen subsistence allowance under section 10-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'Standing Orders Act'.) during the period when it had issued the "no duty order" to the workmen. Being aggrieved by this order of the Industrial Court, the petitioners have challenged the same by filing the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Ketkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-employer, submits that issuance of no duty order to Badli workmen could not by any stretch of imagination amount to a suspension from work and, therefore, there is no question of payment of subsistence allowance during the period when the enquiry was held and no work was assigned to the respondent-workmen. He further submits that in any event, the petitioners are covered by Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. He submits that this Act and the Regulations framed thereunder covering the service conditions of employees would have a overriding effect and would be applicable to the workmen employed by the petitioner rather than the Standing Orders Act.

5. He further submits that in any event, the petitioner's certified Standing Orders have been certified under the Standing Orders Act on 26-7-1953 and, therefore, they would prevail over the Model Standing Orders. He submits that under the certified Standing Orders and Regulations governing the Pune Municipal Transport services, which were framed under the Act and which came into effect from 2-3-1961, no amount of subsistence allowance is payable to the Badli workmen and, therefore, the respondent-workmen were not entitled to any subsistence allowance.

6. In contrast, Mr. Bapat, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-workmen, submits that the effect of the no duty order issued to the workmen pursuant to a charge-sheet and disciplinary proceedings being initiated against them amounts to depriving the respondent-workmen of work on account of disciplinary proceedings. This disciplinary action, he submits, is in accordance with the certified Standing Orders and, therefore, the respondent is entitled to subsistence allowance during the period when the enquiry was being held against him and no duty order was issued to them. He submits that since the certified Standing Orders do not contain any provisions regarding payment of subsistence allowance, one would have to tu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document