Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) challenging an order of the Industrial Court, Latur, dated 13/06/2018. The Industrial Court had allowed Revision (ULP) No. 14/2017 filed by the employee, Nathuram Wamanrao Mundhe, and set aside the Labour Court's interim order dated 31/08/2017 which had refused interim relief to the employee. The employee was suspended following the registration of a criminal case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act based on a complaint by one Ramkishan Nivrutti Kendre. A charge-sheet was issued alleging misconduct, and an enquiry officer was appointed. The management did not lead evidence, and the enquiry officer found the employee guilty of Charge Nos. 1 and 4, while Charge Nos. 2 and 3 were not proved. The management issued a show cause notice dated 25/10/2016. The employee approached the Labour Court seeking interim relief, which was refused. The Industrial Court, in revision, allowed the employee's revision and directed the management to pay subsistence allowance at full pay and allowances during the period of suspension. The management challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court, after considering submissions and examining Regulation 88 of the MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations, 2005, held that the Industrial Court's order was justified. Regulation 88 provides that when an employee is suspended pending criminal proceedings, he is entitled to full pay and allowances as subsistence allowance. The High Court noted that the Labour Court had erred in refusing interim relief. The petition was dismissed, and the Industrial Court's order was upheld. The High Court directed the management to pay the subsistence allowance as ordered by the Industrial Court within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension - Subsistence Allowance - Regulation 88 of MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations, 2005 - The employee was suspended following registration of a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Industrial Court allowed revision and directed payment of subsistence allowance at full pay and allowances. Held that Regulation 88 mandates payment of full pay and allowances during suspension when criminal proceedings are pending, and the Industrial Court correctly interfered with the Labour Court's order refusing interim relief. (Paras 2-5) B) Industrial Law - Interim Relief - Revision Jurisdiction - Industrial Court (Maharashtra) - The Labour Court had refused interim relief to the employee. The Industrial Court, in revision, set aside that order and granted interim relief. Held that the Industrial Court has jurisdiction to grant interim relief in revision, and the order was justified on facts and law. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting interim relief to the employee by directing payment of subsistence allowance at full pay and allowances during suspension pending criminal proceedings, despite the Labour Court having refused such relief.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Industrial Court's order dated 13/06/2018 upheld. Management directed to pay subsistence allowance at full pay and allowances to the employee within four weeks.
Law Points
- Subsistence allowance
- Suspension pending criminal proceedings
- Regulation 88 MSEDCL Service Regulations
- 2005
- Full pay and allowances
- Interim relief
- Industrial Court jurisdiction
