The central legal point established in the judgment is the right of a suspended employee to receive subsistence allowance as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and relevant standing orders and rules.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.

1. This writ appeal has been filed by the workman, the Opposite Party No. 2in the Writ Petition which was filed by M/s. Orissa Air Products Ltd., the Company.

2. The Writ Petition, being OJC No. 8193 of 2001, was filed by the Company challenging the Order Dated 25.4.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No. 5 of 1994. The said Misc. Case was registered on the basis of an application filed by the present Appellant under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter called the ’said Act’). In the said Misc. Case, a prayer was made by the present Appellant for issuing a direction on the Management of the Company for computation of full wages during the period of suspension of the Appellant from service.

3. The material facts are:

The present Appellant was working as an Assistant Depot Superintendent in the Respondent’s establishment at Rourkela. In view of certain allegation against him, he was placed under suspension with effect from 4.3.1993. The said order of suspension runs as follows:

We have received reports alleging serious complaints about gross misconduct, as well as indiscipline of various nature against you, necessitating initiation of disciplinary proceedings in view of the gravity of the charges involved therein. Accordingly, you are here by placed under suspension from service w.e.f. 4.3.1993. A charge sheet will follow shortly. You will be entitled to receive subsistence suspension allowance during the period of suspension as per rules. You are further required to report yourself daily

between 9.15 A.M. and 9.30 A.M. on all working days at our Rourkela depot to sign is the register kept there and also receive directions and communications which may be addressed to you from time to time.

4. The charge sheet was issued on 15.6.1993 on several grounds. However, the order of suspension against the Appellant was revoked on 14.9.1993 and the Appellant was directed to report for duty on 16.9.1993. As the Appellant was not paid subsistence allowance during the pendency of the departmental proceeding, he filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the said-Act claiming subsistence allowance as well as arrears of salary. During pendency of the said application, the Departmental Enquiry was concluded and the Appellant was found guilty and ultimately was dismissed from service. However, challenging the said order of dismissal, the Appellant raised Industrial Dispute before the District Labour Officer, Dhenkanal-cum-Conciliation Officer and the conciliation having failed, the dispute has been referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and the said reference has been registered as I.D. Case No. 55 of 1996.

5. In the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act which was filed by the Appellant, the Labour Court held that the Appellant is entitled to get the subsistence allowance and as the suspension was revoked unconditionally, it was further held that the period of suspension is bound to be treated as on duty and the Labour Court Computed the amount to be payable to the Appellant at Rs. 17976/-and directed the Management of the said Company to pay the same.

6. Against such direction, the Writ Petition was filed. Learned Judge after considering the facts of the case and considering the provisions of Rule 14(2) of the Orissa Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1946 and Rule 14(4)(b) of the aforesaid Rules held that a workman who is placed under suspension shall, during the period of suspension, be paid subsistence allowance at the stipulated rates. Learned Judge of the Writ Court held that the aforesaid Standing Order applies to the case of the Appellant but the Learned Judge held that the Labour Court has lost sight of the aforesaid provision and thus the order suffers from non-consideration of relevant provision. Learned Judge further held that whether the Appellant would be entitled to any Subsistence Allowance or not depends upon t