Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 4267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
D. Hariparanthaman, J.
K. Muthuveni – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department – Respondent
W.P. No. 23337 of 2013
Decided On : 23-08-2013
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to full backwages without adjusting or deducting subsistence allowance during a period of suspension is determined by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and Fundamental Rules, and such entitlement must align with established legal provisions.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Entitlement to Full Backwages - Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Rule 54-B-1(1), (3) and (4) of the Fundamental Rules - [Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Rule 54-B-1(1), (3) and (4) of the Fundamental Rules]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Assistant from Thiruvallur Municipality, sought full salary without deducting the subsistence allowance paid to her during a period of suspension. The court considered the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act and Fundamental Rules to determine the entitlement to full backwages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for full salary without adjusting subsistence allowance was not meritorious, as the Industrial Disputes Act and Fundamental Rules did not provide for such entitlement. The court also noted that the petitioner had previously claimed wages after adjusting subsistence allowance, and her current claim was deemed absurd.
Issues: The issue involved whether the petitioner was entitled to full backwages without adjusting or deducting subsistence allowance paid during the period of suspension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 54-B-1(1), (3) and (4) of the Fundamental Rules to determine the entitlement to full backwages. It emphasized that the petitioner's claim lacked merit and was contrary to established legal provisions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's claim had no merit and was deemed absurd. The court also highlighted that the petitioner had not challenged the punishment order and the authority's decision under Rule 54-B-1(1) of the Fundamental Rules.
1. With the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner is a retired Assistant from Thiruvallur Municipality. When she was working as Revenue Inspector in Avadi Municipality, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against her in TDP Case No. 35/2007 RC A1/1382/07 on 02.04.2008. The second respondent, placing reliance on the findings rendered by the Commissioner of Disciplinary Proceedings in the final report dated 23.12.2010 and after giving opportunity to the petitioner, passed the order dated 29.05.2012 in ROC No. 28213/2005/OP-3, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one month without cumulative effect and also made it clear that the penalty will not affect the pension of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner was kept under suspension from 20.04.2005 to 12.12.2007 during the disciplinary proceeding. By the order dated 28.03.2013 in ROC No. 28213/2005/OP-3, the said period of suspension was regularized by the second respondent and a direction was issued to the third respondent to draw and disburse the arrears of pay due to the petitioner for the period of suspension, which was regularized.
4. Now the petitioner claims that she shall be paid full salary without with out deducting or adjusting the subsistence allowance that was paid to her for the period of suspension.
5. While the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 2-rr of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for his claim that the petitioner shall be paid full salary without deducting the subsistence allowance, the same is stoutly opposed by the learned Special Government Pleader. He also relied on Rule 54-B-1(1), (3) and (4) of the Fundamental Rules.
6. In support of his claim, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the following judgments:
(1) E.S.I.C. vs. Management of Kirloskar Systems Ltd. (1984) ILR (Kar) 965
(2) Karnataka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Karpi, (1986) ILR (Kar) 3794
(3) Madhav Prasad Chaudhary vs. Union of India, (1991) 16 Administrative Tribunals Cases 786
(4) Syed Ali Qambar vs. State of Bihar and Others
(5) Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Ltd. vs. G. Jeelendran and Another, (2002) 4 LLJ 26
7. The learned Special Government Pleader brought to my notice that in the representation dated 31.05.2013, the petitioner herself claimed full backwages excluding subsistence allowance.
8. I have considered the submissions made by either sides.
9. The issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to full backwages without adjusting or deducting subsistence allowance that was paid to her during the period of suspension, i.e. from 20.04.2005 to 12.12.2007 or not?
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as follows:
2(rr). "wages" means all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a workman in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes:-
(i) such allowances (including dearness allowance) as the workman is for the time being entitled to.
(ii) the value of any house accommodation, or of supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service or of any concessional supply of food-grains or other articles.
(iii) any traveling concession.
(iv) any commission payable on the promotion of sales or business or both; but does not include:-
(a) any bonus.
(b) any contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund or for the benefit of the workman under any law for the time being in force.
(c) any gratuity payable on the termination of his service.
11. Firstly, it is doubtful as to whether the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applicable to the petitioner herein, who was working as Revenue Inspector in the Thiruvallur Municipality. Furthermor
