GNANAMBIKAI MILLS LTD Vs. RAMACHANDRAN M R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent, Ramachandran, was an employee of the petitioner. An industrial dispute between the management of the petitioner-company and its employees was referred to the industrial tribunal for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. During the pendency of these proceedings the management took disciplinary action against the respondent. The management held an inquiry and came to the conclusion that the respondent should be dismissed for proved misconduct. On 16 June 1954, the management directed suspension of the respondent pending the contemplated dismissal, for which the sanction of the industrial tribunal was necessary under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On 29 June 1954, the petitioner applied to the industrial tribunal for the requisite sanction. It was represented that that application has not yet been disposed of despite the lapse of about three years.

(2.) ON 21 October 1954, the respondent preferred an application to the prescribed statutory authority under the Payment of Wages Act, for a direction under Section 15 (3) of the Act, that the management should pay the respondent the wages due to him for the period 16 June 1954 to 19 October 1954. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, disposed of that application. He upheld the respondent's claim, that despite the suspension ordered by the management, the respondent was entitled to payment of wages during that period. The petitioner applied under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner.

(3.) CLAUSE 20 (1) of the standing orders, which admittedly regulated the conditions of service of the respondent, could not obviously apply to a suspension ordered by the management pending disposal of the application for the sanction prescribed by Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It should be taken as well settled now that suspension pending an enquiry is not itself a punishment. Neither is suspension pending disposal of the application preferred by the management under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act a punishment. That has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Lakshmidevi Sugar Mills, Ltd. v. Ram Sarup and Ors. 1957 I L. L. J. 17 (S. C. ).