THE SECRETARY, PALANI CO-OPERATIVE SALES SOCEITY AND ANR. Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions by the management arise out of an order made by the Labour Court, Madurai under Sec. 33 -C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Respondent asked his salary to be computed at Rs. 60 per month. He claimed the salary at that rate for the period of suspension commencing from December 6, 1967 to October 26, 1968 and also leave wages for the period from October 22, 1965 to October 26, 1968. We are not concerned with the second part of the claim. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, took the view that under bye -law 13(h) the management had no power to suspend a worker pending an enquiry. On that view, he allowed the Respondent's claim so far as the salary for the period of suspension was concerned. Ramaprasada Rao J., found that there was conflict of views on the scope and interpretation of bye -law 13(h) and made a reference of the question to a Division Bench.

(2.) Bye -law 13 deals with disciplinary action against a member of the establishment. It is contemplated by the bye -law that a sub -committee shall be elected by the Board of Directors and such sub -committee shall exercise the powers specified against it in the succeeding sub -clause of the bye -law. We are concerned with Clause (h) which is:

(3.) Since the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, has taken the view that the power of suspension is available only by way of punishment and on that basis he awarded full salary for the period of suspension, we quash that part of the award. The matters involved in the three writ petitions will stand remitted to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. The Presiding Officer will give the management a fresh opportunity to show whether it has exercised its discretion contemplated by bye -law 13(h) and further whether it passed orders of suspension each time for a period not exceeding three months, in the light of which the Presiding Officer will decide. The Presiding Officer will also take into account the subsequent dismissal of the employee concerned on the question whether in view of it his claim would be tenable and if so, to what extent. No costs.