1. This petition is filed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee challenging the judgment and order dated 17-12-2005 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Complaint (ULPN) No.574 of 2002. The Industrial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has directed the petitioner-Market Committee to pay to the respondent No.2-complainant the subsistence allowance as per the provisions of Clause 25(5-A) of the Model Standing Orders till the suspension of the respondent-complainant is revoked or till the final order is passed after completion of the departmental enquiry, whichever occurs earlier.

2. In the complaint filed under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 invoking Item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act, it was alleged that the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 [for short, “the Employment (Standing Orders) Act”] were applicable to the establishment of the petitioner-Market Committee and as per the provisions of Clause 25(5-A) of the Model Standing Orders framed thereunder, the respondent-complainant was entitled to subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of the basic pay after completion of 90 days from the date of suspension, i.e. 30-3-2002, and at the rate of 100% after completion of 180 days. However, the petitioner-Market Committee was paying subsistence allowance to the respondent-complainant at the rate of 50% of the wages as per the provisions of the Rules framed by the petitioner-Market Committee, during the period of suspension, which, according to the respondent-complainant, was illegal. Hence, the claim was made as per the provisions of the Model Standing Orders, which has been granted.

3. The stand of the petitioner-Market Committee before the Industrial Court was that the petitioner-Market Committee is not covered by the definition of “industrial establishment” under Section 2(e)(i) of the Employment (Standing Orders) Act and hence the provisions of the Employment (Standing Orders) Act or the Model Standing Orders framed thereunder were not applicable to the establishment of the petitioner-Market Committee. The respondent-complainant was, therefore, not entitled to subsistence allowance as per the provisions of the Employment (Standing Orders) Act and the Model Standing Orders.

4. The Industrial Court, after referring to the definition of “industrial establishment” under Section 2(e)(i) of the Employment (Standing Orders) Act and the definition of “industrial or other establishments” under Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, has recorded the finding that the provisions of the Employment (Standing Orders) Act are applicable to the establishment of the petitioner-Market Committee for the reason that the word “produce” employed in the definition of “industrial establishment” can be interpreted as to bring forward or to provide for consideration, inspection or sale. The further finding is recorded that the petitioner-Market Committee is bringing forward the notified agricultural produce for sale by public auction through the broker and hence it is covered by the definition of “industrial establishment” given in Section 2(e)(i) of the Employment (Standing Orders) Act.

5. In view of the aforesaid pleadings and the decision given by the Industrial Court, the question, which falls for consideration of this Court, is whether the establishment of the petitioner-Market Committee is covered by the definition of “industrial establishment” under Section 2(e)(i) of the Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 read with Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act. It is not disputed before this Court that if the establishment of the petitioner-Market Committee is covered by the said definition, then the provisions of the Employment (Standing Orders) Act and the Model Standing Orders framed thereunder will be applicable and the respondent-complainant will be entitled to subsistence allowance as