Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between a bank and its employee regarding the payment of subsistence allowance during the employee's suspension pending a departmental enquiry. The respondent, an award staff member, was suspended on 5.3.1993 due to alleged irregularities and was issued a chargesheet on 8.4.1993. Following this, a FIR was lodged with the CBI, which filed a chargesheet on 30.9.1993. The bank provided a subsistence allowance of one-third of pay for the first three months and half thereafter. The respondent argued that he was entitled to full pay after one year of suspension as the delay was not attributable to him, citing clause 5(a)(iii) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 8.9.1983. The bank contended that since the investigation was taken up by an outside agency, the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement did not apply, and the respondent was governed by the Sastry Award, which allowed only half of the pay and allowances. The Orissa High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to the bank's appeal. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions and concluded that the Bipartite Settlement modified but did not replace the Sastry and Desai Awards. It clarified that the respondent was entitled only to half of the pay and allowances as the investigation was conducted by an outside agency. The court set aside the High Court's order and upheld the bank's decision regarding the subsistence allowance.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Subsistence Allowance - Applicability of Bipartite Settlement - Full pay and allowances entitlement - Bipartite Settlement, 1983, Clause 5 - Court held that the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement modified the Sastry and Desai Awards, allowing full pay after one year only if the enquiry was not delayed for reasons attributable to the workman. Since the investigation was taken up by an outside agency, the respondent was entitled only to half of the pay and allowances (Paras 3-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was entitled to only half of pay and allowances as subsistence allowance even after one year.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and upheld the bank's decision that the respondent was entitled only to half of pay and allowances as subsistence allowance during the entire period of suspension.
Law Points
- subsistence allowance
- departmental enquiry
- outside agency investigation
- Bipartite Settlement
- Sastry Award
- Desai Award
