(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) Rule. Rule taken up forthwith for hearing by consent of the parties.
(3.) This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Industrial Court at Pune on a complaint of unfair labour practice made by Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein (original complainants). The complainants' case before the Industrial Court was that they were working with the Petitioner establishment, and while in service, were charge-sheeted for various misconducts and suspended pending the enquiry without payment of subsistence allowance in accordance with law. It is not in dispute that for the first 90 days of their suspension, the complainants were paid subsistence allowance at the rate of 50 per cent of wages and 70 per cent of such wages for the remaining period of their suspension. The grievance of the complainants is two fold. In the first place, it is submitted that they were entitled for 100 per cent wages post 180 days of suspension and secondly, that the quantum of wages considered for such subsistence allowance was not in accordance with minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act.