MANAGER N K BAHETI Vs. SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five revision petitions arise out of a common judgment passed by the District Judge, Ajmer, dated 11. 7. 1986 in appeal u/s 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, against the order of the Authority under the payment of Wages Act, dismissing the applications of the non-petitioner No. 1.

(2.) SITARAM Verma, non-petitioner No. l was employed by the petitioner in its factory at Ajmer. He was elected President of the Ajmer Oudhogik Karmachari Sangh in January, 1980 and was declared as a protected workman by order of the Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ajmer, vide his order dated 10. 6. 81. He was given an charge-sheet on 20. 6. 81 and was also placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental enquiry, After holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges levelled and the enquiry report was submitted on 24. 8. 1981. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer and passed an order, dismissing the non-petitioner No. 1 vide order dated 16. 9. 81. He was further informed that since he was a protected workman, an application u/s 33 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act',) was being submitted for granting permission for his dismissal. He was further informed that he would be under statutory suspension from 16. 9. 1981 till the application u/s 33 (3) of the Act was decided.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that the learned District Judge had no authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order because the subsistence allowance which has became payable in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Solanki's case (1) cannot be termed as 'wages' with the meaning of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and therefore, it is the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act which has to determine and quantity the subsistence allowance which is payable to the workman. He also submitted that there is no provision either under the Certified Standing Order of the Company or the Model Standing Orders providing for payment of the subsistance allowances during the period of statutory suspension of the workman. He has further submitted that even in Solanki's case the Supreme Court has also observed that in case where the proceedings are completed and the order of dismissal is successfully challenged on the ground of non-payment of subsistence allowance for the period of statutory suspension, a liberty has been given to the management to ask for the permission of the Authority under section 33 (3) of the Act and hence, payment of wages Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim for the subsistence allowances for the period of statutory suspension u/s 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.