JAYPRAKASH GANGADHAR JADHAV Vs. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Labour Court, Nasik, dated September 7, 1991, made in Application (IDA) No. 140 of 1988 under the Provisions of Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE Petitioner was in the employment of the First Respondent and, on an allegation of lo misconduct, he was suspended from work with effect from September 1, 1987 and served with a charge-sheet. A lengthy domestic enquiry was held against the Petitioner, which resulted in the enquiry Officer finding the Petitioner guilty of the charges alleged against him. Under the standing Order 28 (c) applicable to the First Respondent establishment, the employer is required to give the delinquent workman a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalties proposed. Accordingly, the Petitioner was given a show cause notice dated July 29, 1987 informing him that he has been found guilty of the charges alleged against him by the charge-sheet and called upon to show cause as to why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed upon him. Instead of replying to the said show-cause notice, the Petitioner rushed to the labour Court and filed a complaint under the Act and obtained an exparte injunction order restraining the First Respondent from taking action against him. This injunction order was vacated on December 10, 1987 after the First Respondent appeared before the Labour Court and contested the complaint and the application for interim reliel Even then, the petitioner did not give any reply to the showcause notice, but moved the Industrial Court by his Revision application (ULP) No. 75 of 1987 and again obtained an interim order restraining the First respondent from taking further action. The First Respondent entered appearance, and contested the Revision Application. The interim order made in the Revision Application was ultimately vacated by the Industrial Court. Not being satisfied, the petitioner moved this Court by Writ petition No. 2130 of 1988, which came to be dismissed on June 20, 1988. An order of dismissal came to be passed against the Petitioner on June 24, 1988. The Petitioner remained on suspension from September 1, 1987 to June 24, 1988. The First Respondent has paid to the petitioner subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% of his last drawn wages during the entire period of suspension.

(3.) THE Petitioner filed the application before the Labour Court, Nasik, under Section 33-C (2) of the Act and alleged that, under the applicable Standing Order, he was entitled to be paid 75% of his emoluments as subsistence allowance for the period in question and claimed the difference between what was already paid and what was being claimed by him. The Petitioner made his claim under Standing Order 28 (b) (i), which reads as under :-