( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. Shirish Joshi for petitioner and Ms. Parul Vasavda for respondent. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Bank has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Recovery Application NO. 613 of 2001 dated 5. 5. 2005 wherein the labour court has partly allowed the recovery application and has directed the petitioner to pay to respondent an amount of Rs. 22415. 80 as dues towards full wages of suspension period within thirty days of publication of the said order.

( 2 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Joshi appearing for petitioner has submitted that the Model Standing Orders Act is not applicable to petitioner. He also submitted that after verification, Model Standing Orders are applicable to petitioner. He also raised a contention before this Court that the application under section 33-C-2 of the ID Act, 1947 was filed by the respondent workman after a period of 7 to 8 years and, therefore, labour court ought not to have entertained such an application in view of the delay on the part of the workman in filing of such an application. Except these submissions, no other submission was made by learned Advocate Mr. Joshi before this Court. No decision was cited by him before this Court.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, learned Advocate Ms. Vasavada appearing for the respondent workman has submitted that this question was examined by this Court (Coram ; Hon ble Ms. Justice R. M. Doshit) in Special Civil Application No. 443 of 1999 decided on 8. 10. 1999 wherein this Court has decided that when there is no service rules/statutory rules/standing Orders to provide how much subsistence allowance is to e paid to the workman during the period of suspension, then, workman is entitled for full wages during the period of suspension. Based on the aforesaid submission, learned Advocate Ms. Parul Vasavada submitted that the labour court was right in passing the order in question after considering the provisions of the Standing Orders as well as the earlier order of this Court in identical matter.

( 4 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties. I have also perused the order in question as well as the order of this Court in SCA No. 443 of 1999 decided on 8. 10. 1999. According to my opinion, labour court has rightly considered the matter at issue that when there is no service rule providing specific subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, then, petitioner shall have to pay full wages to the workman during the period of suspension. According to my opinion, the controversy sought to be raised by the petitioner is no more res integra in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court (Coram : R. M. Doshit,j.) dated 8. 10. 1999. In para 4 of the said decision,this Court observed as under:"4. It is not disputed that the relevant standing order does not provide for payment of wages at the reduced rate during the period of suspension pending inquiry. In absence of specific rule to that effect the respondent would be entitled to the full wages even during the period of suspension. However, the demand was for 25% of wages by way of additional amount of subsistence allowance. The Learned Judge ought not to have granted more than what was demanded. The petition is therefore, allowed. The impugned order of the Learned labour Judge is modified to the effect that the respondent will be entitled to 25% of the wages by way of additional amount of subsistence allowance for the period in question. Rule is made absolute to the above extent only. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 to be quoted. "

( 5 ) THEREFORE, in view of the observations made by this Court in aforesaid case, it is clear that the contention sought to be raised by petitioner in this case has been negatived by this Court in aforesaid decision and, therefore, according to my opinion, labour court, Jamnagar was right in examining the matter at issue and was right in relying upon earli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document