MANAGER ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was filed in this Court by the management of the petitioner industry in the matter of Industrial Disputes Act and interpretation concerning its relevant provisions.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 and other workmen of the petitioner-industry went on strike thereby committing dereliction of duty and misconduct for which they were issued charge-sheet and passed suspension orders which were served on them in the first week of April, 1979. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents. During the intervening period of the inquiry there was some settlement between the Union representing the workmen and the management and as a consequence of the settlement, the union withdrew its claim against the management on behalf of the workmen and it was agreed as a result of the settlement that non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 shall remain under suspension with no stipulation for payment of suspension allowance to them. The non-petitioners had made a request for change of the inquiry officer who was conducting the inquiry on behalf of the management against the said workmen and as a consequence of which the inquiry was delayed. As a result of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found the workmen guilty of misconduct and they were consequently dismissed in December, 1979.

(3.) NON-PETITIONERS Nos. 2 to 5 and one Shri Ram Kumar Pandey through their counsel filed an application under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947') (Ex. 1) on May 15, 1979 praying for the relief that an amount at the rate of Rs. 1650/20 may be computed and an order may be passed for the payment of the claim in favour of the workmen along with cost. The statement of claim was filed before the Labour Court and in the said claim petition it was contended on behalf of the workmen that they were placed under suspension in October, 1978 by the petitioner-industry. It was further contended on behalf of the workmen that as per the standing orders applicable to the petitioner-company, workmen were entitled for payment of subsistence allowance for first three months at the rate of 50% of the wages and after three months at the rate of 3/4th of the wages. It was contended that since the management did not make the payment of the subsistence allowance to non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 for October, 1978 and from December, 1978 they were paid only half of the wages towards subsistence allowance, therefore, non-petitioners were entitled for subsistence allowance which they claimed at the rate of Rs. 341. 65, Rs. 318. 30 and Rs. 330. 30 for the period October, 1978 to April 1979 in all Rs. 1650. 20 and no other claim was made except subsistence allowance as referred to above. With regard to the claim of Raj Kumar Pandey for subsistence allowance, the same was given up by the said workmen during the course of adjudication of the proceedings before the Labour Court,