VOLTAS LIMITED Vs. UMED SINGH BAJETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the judgement of the Industrial Court under section 28, Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as "MRTU & PULP Act". By the impugned judgement, the Industrial Court has allowed the respondent no.1's complaint and held that the petitioner is liable to pay full wages to the complainant for the period of his suspension with effect from 12.4.2000 after adjusting the payment already made and credit his P.F. account.

(2.) The dispute between the parties arose out of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondent no.1. For the period of suspension, the petitioner paid full wages to the respondent no.1. Later on, the petitioner realised that it had paid more than the respondent no.1 was entitled to. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 was entitled only to payment in accordance with the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. Hence, the petitioner initiated recovery proceedings for the amount. The respondent no.1, therefore, approached the Industrial Court. In the complaint before the Industrial Court, the respondent no.1 failed to plead that the petitioner employed less than 50 persons in the establishment where he was employed. This pleading was relevant under section 38-B of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, which reads as follows:-

(3.) Mr.Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on the following observations of the Supreme Court in Shankar v. Britannia Biscuit Co., reported in AIR 1979 SC 1652:-