CEAT LIMITED Vs. DAYARAM KISHORELAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE short point for consideration which arises in both the petitions is whether the Industrial Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as "the said Act" while dealing with a complaint under the said Act, is empowered to consider the justifiability of the suspension of an employee during the pendency of the enquiry against him.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 in both these petitions came to be suspended on different dates on the allegation of charges of serious misconduct and continued to be under suspension during the enquiry which prolonged beyond 180 days from the date of commencement of suspension. Both the respondents filed complaint alleging adoption of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act by the petitioners and allowing the said complaints, the Industrial Court ordered quashing of the suspension orders and holding that the respondents would be entitled for full wages for the period of suspension i. e. from the date of order of suspension till the date of termination in the case of the respondent Dayaram Kishorelal Yadav (in Writ Petition No. 3042 of 1999) and from the date of suspension till 27th March, 1998 in the case of the respondent Manoj B. Mhatre (in Writ Petition No. 3043 of 1999 ).