STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA SACHIVALAYA, BOMBAY AND ANOTHER Vs. DEVIDAS KHURSANGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed by the State of Maharashtra and the Manager of the Government Press and Book Depot, Nagpur, is directed against the orders of the Payment of Wages Authority, Nagpur, and the District Judge Nagpur, holding that the respondent was entitled to his full salary during the period of his suspension. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The petitioner was working as a Composing Auxiliary at the Government Printing Press at Nagpur. He was suspended pending an inquiry for misconduct on 26-3-1964. The departmental proceedings resulted in a penalty in the form of reduction to the post of Mazdoor with effect from 24-12-1964. During the period of suspension the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance as provided by rule 151 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. His claim was that during this period he was entitled to full wages at the rate of Rs. 97.50 inclusive of all the allowances and that the amount of Rs. 337.50 was illegally deducted. He, therefore, filed an application before the Payment of Wages Authority claiming Rs. 337.50 as deducted wages, Rs. 3,375.00 as compensation for deduction, and Rs. 225 as compensation for delay in payment of wages. It was the case of the State Government and the Manager of the Government Printing Press that the petitioner was rightly paid his subsistence allowance as provided by rule 151 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. The Payment of Wages Authority, however, took the view that the petitioner was entitled to his full wages and not only to Rs. 61.02 per month which was paid as monthly subsistence allowance. It found that there was an illegal deduction to the extent of Rs. 37.48 per month and the total deduction of wages during the period of suspension worked out to Rs. 328.32. The Authority, therefore, directed the present petitioners to pay Rs. 328.32 to the respondent on account of the deducted wages during the period of suspension. The rest of the claim of the respondent was rejected.

(2.) The petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the Payment of Wages Authority challenging the view that the respondent was entitled to full salary during the period of suspension. The respondent also filed an appeal against the order of the Authority so far as it rejected a part of his claim. Both these appeals came to be decided by a common order by the District Judge, Nagpur, who confirmed the decision of the Payment of Wages Authority. Both the appeals, therefore, came to be dismissed.

(3.) It may be mentioned that both the Payment of Wages Authority and the learned District Judge, while upholding the contention of the respondent that he was entitled to full salary during the period of suspension heavily relied on a decision of this Court in K.P. Mushran Vs. B.C. Patil, AIR 1952 Bom. 235 in which a Division Bench of this Court had taken the view that notwithstanding the order of suspension, the contract of employment was not suspended at all, that the relationship of master and servant between the employer and the employee continued to subsist, and that the obligation of the parties under the contract remained unaffected. The Division Bench, therefore, took the view that the employee was entitled to wages during the period of suspension and the Payment of Wages Authority was competent to order the employer to pay the full amount of wages during such period. The learned District Judge has taken the view that the Bombay Civil Services Rules did not make any provision regarding suspension and, therefore, the suspension was not according to any rule.