MANAGEMENT KRISHNAVENI ROADWAYS MADURAI Vs. I P PUNNAIVANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which arises for consideration in these writ petitions is, whether the first respondent is entitled to claim wages as he had done for the period during which he was under suspension till the date of his dismissal. He was under suspension from 19th February, 1980. The order of dismissal was passed on 27th August, 1980. Admittedly there are no Standing Orders for the petitioner Establishment. There are no Rules and Regulations providing for suspension or payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. Hence, the Labour Court, Madurai, came to the right conclusion that even after the suspension, the relationship of employer and employee did not come to an end and the employer was bound to pay wages during the period of suspension.

(2.) IT was next contended that the order of dismissal passed against the first respondent was with retrospective effect from the date of suspension. The decisions of this Court in Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society, Mayalandi v. Labour Court, Madurai Dt. Cooperative Central Bank ltd. , Madurai and Others 54. FJR. 396 and Raju v. President, Madurai Dt. Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. , Madurai and others (1975-II-LLJ-240) were relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is seen that the decisions relate to co-operative societies which had Standing Orders providing for suspension as well as payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. In the absence of any Standing Orders containing such provisions, it is not open to the employer to pass an order of dismissal with retrospective effect and choose to deprive the employee of his wages which he was rightfully entitled to during the period of suspension. It is elementary principle of law that an order of suspension does not sever the jural relationship of employer and employee between the management and the worker. Once that position is settled, it follows automatically that the employee is entitled to wages during the period of suspension. By delaying the enquiry into the alleged misconduct and passing an order of dismissal at the end of the enquiry with retrospective effect, the employer is not entitled to deprive the employee of his wages. The Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the order of dismissal will not disentitle the first respondent from claiming wages for the period prior to the dismissal after the date of suspension.

(3.) IT is next contended by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner that the order of dismissal has not been challenged by the first respondent and the Labour Court is not entitled to hold that the Order is not valid in so far as it has retrospective effect. The failure on the part of the first respondent to challenge the order of dismissal would only mean that he accepts the order of dismissal to take effect from the date of the order. That does not mean that he has given up his claim for wages prior to the date of dismissal. The order of dismissal, even if it has become final, will have only prospective effect and it cannot have retrospective effect so as to deprive the first respondent of the wages to which he was rightfully entitled under law.