THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUPERFIL PRODUCTS LIMITED Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PUDUCHERRY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions have been filed by the Managing Director, Superfil Products Limited challenging the order of the 1st Respondent herein passed in C.P. Nos.18 and 19 of 2012 on 17.07.2013 directing the petitioner herein to pay the respective workmen, i.e., the 2nd respondent in both the writ petitions, the subsistence allowance from 10.01.2011 to 15.12.2011 in C.P. No.18 of 2012 and from 10.01.2011 to 15.1.2011 in C.P. No.19 of 2012 @75% of the wages during the relevant period after deducting the subsistence allowance which has already been paid in view of Section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short "the Act") to be illegal and arbitrary being contrary to the materials on record as well as law.

(2.) As it appears, the 2nd respondent workmen in the aforesaid writ petitions were put under suspension pending disposal of domestic enquiry against them. However, they having not been paid the subsistence allowance during such period of suspension as contemplated under Section 10A of the Act they approached the 1st respondent vide C.P. Nos.2 and 3 of 2011 under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Taking into consideration the aforesaid provisions, their such claim was allowed and the present petitioner-Management was directed to release the substantial amount in favour of the aforesaid petitioners of Rs. 39,222/- and Rs. 45,651/- respectively. The petitioner management complied with the said order of the Labour Court. Thereafter, on conclusion of the domestic enquiry, however, the services of the workmen were terminated on 31.01.2012 and 15.12.2011 respectively. Hence, the writ petition was directed to pay the allowance from 10.01.2011 to 31.01.2012 to the respondent no.2 in W.P. No.4515 of 2014 and from 01.01.2011 to 15.12.2011 to the respondent no.2 workmen in W.P. No.4516 of 2014 @ 75% of the wages in C.P. Nos.18 and 19 of 2012 raised under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The 1st respondent has passed such an order taking note of the provisions contained in Section-10'A' of the Act. The same has been challenged in this writ petition to be perverse, inasmuch as the same is contrary to the materials on record. No counter affidavit has been filed by the contesting respondent-workmen.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, so also learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.