Subsistence allowance payable to an employee during the period of suspension, in accordance with the statutory provisions or under the contract of employment, falls within the definition of 'wages' as contained in Section 2(6) of the Payment of Wages Act and the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction to entertain a claim in respect of payment of arrears of subsistence allowance.

Headnote:
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT - Suspension of Employee - Subsistence Allowance - Jurisdiction of Authority under the Act - Interpretation of 'Wages' - Rajasthan Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 - Model Standing Orders - Bye-laws of the Federation.
Fact of the Case:

Asha Ram, a Purchase Supervisor with the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., was suspended with immediate effect on August 7, 1979. He marked his attendance from September 12, 1979, to October 17, 1979, but thereafter did not present himself in the office nor marked his attendance. Asha Ram filed five claim petitions before the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act at Bikaner in respect of different periods from August 1, 1979, to January 31, 1980. The Payment of Wages Authority allowed all the applications and passed orders for payment of arrears of wages at the full rate after deducting the amount which was already paid. On appeal by the Federation, the District Judge, Bikaner modified the orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and held that Asharam was entitled to wages to the full extent only for a period of 29 days, on the ground that Asharam presented himself at the place of work and marked his attendance only during a period of 29 days, out of the entire period from August 1, 1979, to April 30, 1981.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Managing Director of the Federation had the power to suspend an employee pending determination of disciplinary proceedings against him and the learned District judge was in error in holding that suspension could be awarded only as a punishment and that too for a period of four days. The court further held that the General Manager had no power to modify the order passed by the Managing Director and to impose a condition upon the employee that he shall attend the office daily and mark his attendance every day in the register kept for the purpose, during the period of suspension. The court also held that the employee was entitled to subsistence allowance with effect from September 12, 1979, and that the subsistence allowance payable to the employee during the period of suspension fell within the definition of 'wages' as contained in Section 2(6) of the Payment of Wages Act and the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act had jurisdiction to entertain a claim in respect of payment of arrears of subsistence allowance.
Issues: 1. Whether the Managing Director of the Federation had the power to suspend an employee pending determination of disciplinary proceedings against him? 2. Whether the General Manager had the power to modify the order passed by the Managing Director and to impose a condition upon the employee that he shall attend the office daily and mark his attendance every day in the register kept for the purpose, during the period of suspension? 3. Whether the employee was entitled to subsistence allowance with effect from September 12, 1979? 4. Whether the subsistence allowance payable to the employee during the period of suspension fell within the definition of 'wages' as contained in Section 2(6) of the Payment of Wages Act? 5. Whether the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act had jurisdiction to entertain a claim in respect of payment of arrears of subsistence allowance?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Managing Director of the Federation had the power to suspend an employee pending determination of disciplinary proceedings against him, as per the provisions of sub-clause (3) (a) of clause (18) of the Model Standing Orders read with clause 24. 2 (i) of the bye-laws of the Federation. 2. The court held that the General Manager had no power to modify the order passed by the Managing Director and to impose a condition upon the employee that he shall attend the office daily and mark his attendance every day in the register kept for the purpose, during the period of suspension, as the Managing Director did not impose any such condition in the instant case. 3. The court held that the employee was entitled to subsistence allowance with effect from September 12, 1979, as the Managing Director did not impose any condition about daily presence in the office or marking attendance in the register, and as such it is not necessary for the court to consider the general question as to whether any such condition could at all be imposed even by the authority who was competent to pass an order of suspension. 4. The court held that the subsistence allowance payable to the employee during the period of suspension fell within the definition of 'wages' as contained in Section 2(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, as it is an allowance, which is payable to the person employed relating to his employment. 5. The court held that the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act had jurisdiction to entertain a claim in respect of payment of arrears of subsistence allowance, as the term 'wages' should be construed in the wider sense and the Payment of Wages Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of the workmen.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision petitions and set aside the orders passed by the learned District Judge and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The Payment of Wages Authority was directed to make arithmetical calculation of the amount payable to the employee Asharam for the period from August 1, 1979, to April 30, 1981, in accordance with the provisions of sub-para 3(b) of Para 18 of the Model Standing Orders and to quantify the amount which has already paid, if any. The Payment of Wages Authority was directed to pass consequential orders in all the claim petitions filed by the employee before him in the light of observations made above within a period of six months.

JUDGMENT

1. These four revision petitions arise out of the same matter and against the very same order passed by the District Judge, Bikaner as such they are disposed of by a common order.

2. Asha Ram was working as Purchase Supervisor with the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred to as the Federation'). He was suspended with immediate effect by the order of the Managing Director of the Federation dated August 7, 1979. The suspension order was served upon Asharam on September 12, 1979 , while conveying the order of suspension the Manager of the Bikaner Unit of the Federation directed the petitioner to present himself in the office everyday and to mark It is attendance in the attendance register kept for the purpose Asharam marked his attendance from September 12, 1979 upto October 17, 1979, but thereafter he did not present himself in the office nor marked his attendance in the attendance register.

3. Ashararn filed five claim petitions before the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act at Bikaner in respect of different periods from August 1, 1979 to January 31, 1980. The Payment of Wages Authority, Bikaner allowed all the applications and passed orders for payment of arrears of wages at the full rate after deducting the amount which was already paid. On appeal by the Federation, the learned District Judge, Bikaner by his order dated April 28, 1982 modified the orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act dated November 26, 1980 and December 16, 1980 to the effect that Asharam was entitled to wages to the full extent only for a period of 29 daily, on the ground that Asharam presented himself at the place of work and marked his attendance only during a period of 29 days, out of the entire period from August 1, 1979 to April 30, 1981. The learned District judge held that model standing orders issued under the Rajasthan Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules were applicable to the employees of the Federation, but under para 4 of the Model Standing Orders an employee could be suspended only for a period of four days: as such the order of suspension of Asharam was apparently illegal and void. He further held that it was incumbent upon the employee to present himself at the place of work and he could not have absented himself and claimed wages at the same time. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that out of the period from August 1, 1979 to January 31, 1980 Asharam had presented himself at the place of his work only during a period of 29 days, as such he was entitled to get full wages for the said period of 29 days.

4. Both parties have filed revision petitions in this Court against the aforesaid order passed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated April 28, 1982. While learned counsel for Asharam argued that the employee was entitled to wages for the entire period from August 1, 1979 to, January 31, 1980 at the rate admissible according to the rules, learned counsel for the Federation submitted that the learned District Judge erred in holding that the Managing Director of the Federation had no power to suspend the concerned employee and that wages should not have been allowed by the learned District judge at the full rate for the period of 29 days, but Asharam was entitled only to subsistence allowance for 29 days at the rate provided in the Model Standing Order.

5. Learned District Judge held that there were no bye-laws applicable to the workmen employed in the industrial establishment, as such the Rajasthan Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as at the 1963 Rules") were applicable to Asharam on account of the provisions of Section 12-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Model Standing orders set out in Schedule I in the Rules of 1963 are applicable to workmen employed in an industrial establishment until the Standing Orders certified under Rule

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1982 Supreme(Raj) 451

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTDwarka Prasad, J.Asha Ram Birla - AppellantVersusGeneral Manager, Rajasthan Co - RespondentS.B. Civil Revision petition No. 167 of 1982 and 176, 177 & 243 of 1982.Decided On : 22-10-1982

Cases Referred (7)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dwarka Prasad, J.
Asha Ram Birla - Appellant
Versus
General Manager, Rajasthan Co - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision petition No. 167 of 1982 and 176, 177 & 243 of 1982.
Decided On : 22-10-1982