PRAKASH NARAIN, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE three appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Punjab High Court as applicable to this Court have been heard together as a common question of law arises for determination.

( 2 ) PURAN Singh, respondent No. 2 in L. P. A. No. 124 of 1977, Ram Swarup, respondent No. 2 in L. P. A. No. 125 of 1977 and Chander Pal, respondent No. 2 in L. P. A. No. 127 of 1977 had filed applications under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of wages allegedly due to them but not paid by the appellant.

( 3 ) PURAN Singh in his application under Section 33-C (2) stated that he joined the appellant as a conductor in 1965 and worked in that capacity till October 22, 1975 when he was removed from service by way of punishment without holding any enquiry. He further stated that he was placed under suspension pending enquiry on January 20, 1974 by an order passed by the Assistant General Manager (T) Vigilance. He remained under suspension upto January 20, 1975 when the suspension order was revoked. For the period of suspension he was paid subsistence allowance though he was entitled to full wages. Accordingly, he asked for the balance due by way of the wages to be computed and ordered to be paid to him. He also claimed bonus for the year 1974-75, which according to him had not been paid to him. Apart from this he claimed various increments to which he would have been entitled but which were not paid.

( 4 ) RAM Swarup stated in his application under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act that he was a conductor in the establishment of the appellant. He also remained under suspension from December 5, 1973 to October 31, 1974 during which period he was paid subsistence allowance and not full wages. The suspension order was passed by the Assistant General Manager (T) Vigilence. In consequence he claimed the difference between the subsistence allowance paid to him and full wages plus other benefits.

( 5 ) CHANDER Pal joined the appellant as a conductor in 1960. He was placed under suspension tor four months in 1967-68, for 8 months on two occasion in 1972 and for one year and 12 days from January 9, 1974 to January 21, 1975. He was paid subsistence allowance and not full wages. He accordingly claimed the difference of the two for the period during which he was under suspension. He also claimed certain further amounts on the basis of alleged mis-calculation in salary.

( 6 ) ALL the three workmen had pleaded that the Assistant General Manager under whose orders they were placed under suspension did not have the power to suspend in their appliea-tions filed in the Labour Court.

( 7 ) THE appellant raised a jurisdictional objection to the maintainability of an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It contended that inasmuch as the workmen concerned were covered by the definition of the term "motor transport worker" as given in Section 2 (h) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, the remedy of the applicants, if any, was to move an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and consequently the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the applicants were rightly placed under suspension and later even removed from service and were entitled to only subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, which was admittedly paid to them. The objection to the power of the Assistant General Manager to place the workmen concerned under suspension was repelled.

( 8 ) THE Labour Court came to the conclusion that existence of an alternative remedy under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act was no bar to the maintainability of an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Regarding suspension the Labour Court observed that the representative of the appellant Shri D. S. Sareen conceded that the Assistant General Manager had no power to suspend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document