(1.) THE management has challenged in this. writ petition the order of the Labour Court allowing the application filed under Section 33-C (2) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act allowing the claim of the applicant for balance 50% of the wages. The facts in brief are us under:
(2.) THE respondent was an employee of the petitioner and he was working as a torch-boy. He was kept under suspension by an order dated december 25, 1983 which was served on him on January 16, 1984 pending an enquiry. He has been paid 50% of the wages during the period of suspension. The respondent made an application under Section 33-C (2) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act in Application No. 8 of 1995 claiming the remaining 50% of the wages on the ground that the petitioner has no right to keep him under suspension and he has no right to withhold any portion of the wages and that he is entitled to full wages for the period of suspension.
(3.) THE petitioner resisted the said claim on the ground that it has been the practice, custom and usage to give 50% of the wages to the employees during the period of suspension and it has almost become the service condition between the workman and the respondent though there are no rules and regulations providing for suspending a workman or for payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and therefore they contended that the claim of the respondent is totally misconceived. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Labour Court on consideration of the material placed on record and relying on the decisions of the Supreme court held that the custom pleaded by the petitioner has not been established and in the absence of any rules or regulations providing for payment of subsistence allowance the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 46,778. 90 to the respondent being the balance of 50% of wages for the period from May 1, 1986 to August 31,1995 within three months. Aggrieved by the said order, the management has preferred this writ petition.