Whether the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension of an employee of the bank should be paid by taking into account the increments which fell due during the period of suspension


Court :
High Court of Judicature at Madras

Brief :
"The last contention is regarding payment of increments and quarterly allowances to the petitioner during the period of his suspension. Since there is a provision in Clause 17 of Desai Award, suspension allowance has to be paid according to this provision in the award. During the suspension period, pay and allowances of the employee under suspension remains suspended but this is subject to the rules that may be applicable to a particular case. Here Clause 17 as it stands today provides (i) for the first 3 months 1/3rd of pay and allowances, (ii) thereafter half of the pay and allowances (iii) after one year full pay and allowances, if the enquiry is not dela yed for reasons attributed to the concerned workman or any of his representative. The clause speaks of full pay and allowances which means that the employee under suspension is entitled to pay and allowances which the workman would have got but for the suspension. Since the disciplinary proceeding could not be completed within one year, the petitioner is getting full pay which he was last drawing but he has not been paid the allowances which has accrued from time to time including the increments. The interpretation put by the respondents cannot be accepted that the employee is not entitled to increments and allowances during the period of suspension and further if after enquiry the employee is not found guilty of the misconduct alleged, he gets back all the increments which are due to him and he is treated as if he was not under suspension. This is against the specific provision in the award itself. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. State of Maharashtra (supra) but the observations therein that the real effect of the order of suspension is that though the civil servant continues to be a member of the service, he is not permitted to work and is paid only subsistence allowance which is less than his salary and there can be no question of salary accruing or accruing due so long as orders of suspension stand. That was a case where there was no specific provision like Clause 17 of the award. Here the award says that the suspended employee is entitled to pay and allowances which the petitioner would have got if he was not under suspension. Therefore, the petitioner has to be paid all the increments and quarterly allowances which he would have been entitled if he was not under suspension from the date of his suspension in addition to the amount already paid to him by the clause has been correctly interpreted by the other nationalized banks who are paying a suspended employee increments and quarterly allowances payable to an employee which the employee would have got if he was not put under suspension."

Citation :
Indian Overseas Bank rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, 763, Anna Salai, Madras - 600 002. ...Appellant -Vs- 1. All India Overseas Bank Employees' Union rep. by its General Secretary, 764, Anna Salai, Madras - 600 002. 2. The Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal, High Court Buildings, Madras - 600 104. ... Respondents

Madras High Court

Indian Overseas Bank vs All India Overseas Bank on 23 March, 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 23/03/2005

 

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr.MARKANDEY KATJU, Chief Justice

and

The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN

Writ Appeal No. 2688 of 2004

and

W.A.M.P.No. 4970 of 2004

 

Indian Overseas Bank

rep. by its Chairman

and Managing Director,

763, Anna Salai,

Madras - 600 002. ...Appellant

 

-Vs-

 

1. All India Overseas Bank

Employees' Union

rep. by its General Secretary,

764, Anna Salai,

Madras - 600 002.

 

2. The Presiding Officer.

Industrial Tribunal,

High Court Buildings,

Madras - 600 104. ... Respondents

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the

order passed in W.P.No. 3923 of 1997 dated 22.04.2004.

 

For Appellant: Mr.V. Karthick

for M/s.T.S.Gopalan

For Respondent: Mr.C.R.Chandrasekaran

J U D G M E N T

Indian Overseas Bank vs All India Overseas Bank on 23 March, 2005

 

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 22.04.2004.

 

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

 

3. The facts in detail are given in the judgment of the learned single Judge, and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.

 

4. The writ petition was filed by the respondent praying for quashing of the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras dated 29.3.1996. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge, and hence this writ appeal.

 

5. The short controversy in this case is whether the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension of an employee of the bank should be paid by taking into account the increments which fell due during the period of suspension.

 

6. The service conditions of the members of respondent no.1 (writ petitioner) are governed by bank awards as modified by the various Bipartite settlements. Paragraph-557 of Sastry Award reads: - "1. For the first three months one-third of the pay and allowance which the workman would have got but for the suspension.

 

2. Thereafter where the enquiry is departmental by the bank, one half of the pay and allowances for the succeeding months. Where the enquiry is by an outside agency, one-third of the pay and allowances for the next three months and thereafter one half for the succeeding months until the enquiry is over"

 

7. By the Bipartite settlement dated 08.09.2003 between the bank and its union, paragraph-557 of the Sastry Award, as endorsed by paragraph 17.14 of the Desai Award, was partially modified as under: - " Where the investigation is not entrusted to or taken up by an outside agency subsistence allowance will be payable of the following rates: -

 

1.For the first three months 1/3 of the pay and allowance which the workman would have got but for the suspension.

2.Thereafter 1/2 of the pay and allowances.

3. After one year full pay and allowance if the enquiry is not delayed for the reason attributable to the concerned workman or any of his representatives"

 

8. The appellant bank had been paying subsistence allowance up to the year 1988 by taking into consideration the increments which fell due during the period of suspension. However, subsequently the bank decided that the increments which fell due during the period of suspension should not be included for calculation of subsistence allowance and issued circular dated 21.1.1988 to all its offices to discontinue the inclusion of increments for the purpose of calculating subsistence

 

To read the full judgement, find the enclosed attachment

 

Vcn
on 05 September 2015
Published in Labour & Service Law
Views : 3875
downloaded 326 times


 Recent Comments

Total: 0







×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu

web analytics