HINDUSTAN LEVEL EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, Ms. Cox, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner seeks amendment to the Writ Petition to the extent of maintaining the challenge in the Writ Petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution on India in addition to the challenge under the provisions of Article 226. Proposed Draft Amendment is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Petitioner is permitted to amend the Writ Petition to the extent of the Draft Amendment. Amendment shall be carried out in the body of the Writ Petition within a period of one week from today. Re-verification stands dispensed with.

(2.) Petition raises an important point of law. Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the Award dtd. 13/8/2014 rejecting the Reference. Reference related to the Petitioner's claim for seeking subsistence allowance which was denied by the Respondent ' Company on the ground that the suspended employee did not attend the factory premises to mark his attendance at the factory gate in the muster / register provided for the purpose during his suspension. Award has held that denial of subsistence allowance is not contrary to law and justified, since the employee did not attend the factory everyday and sign the muster / register provided therefor.

(3.) Cause of the employee is espoused by the recognized Union in the Respondent ' Company. According to Petitioner, it is not a requirement under the law requiring and/or to call upon a suspended employee to mark his physical attendance and sign the muster everyday at the factory gate as a pre-requisite for being paid subsistence allowance. In the present case, the employee has not attended the factory each day and signed the muster due to which he has been denied subsistence allowance. This is upheld by the Labour Court.