Bombay High Court Directs Payment of Suspension Allowance to Mukadam Pending Domestic Inquiry Under Mathadi Act. Petitioner entitled to subsistence allowance during suspension as per Clause 34 of the Scheme framed under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 25
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Petitioner, Tanaji Genba Pawge, was registered with the Mumbai Vegetable Market Unprotected Workers Board (Respondent No.1) in May 1994 and appointed as Mukadam of Toli No.11B/1 in 2002. He was served with a show cause notice on 06/06/2018 and subsequently suspended by order dated 14/06/2018. The Petitioner requested payment of suspension allowance via letter dated 19/06/2018 and reminder on 31/07/2018, but the Board did not pay. A chargesheet was issued on 23/08/2018 and departmental proceedings were pending. The Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction for payment of suspension allowance. The Board contended that the inquiry was under Section 13 of the Mathadi Act and not Clause 34 of the Scheme, but the Court found that the suspension order itself referred to Clause 34. The Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to suspension allowance as per Clause 34 of the Scheme during the pendency of the domestic inquiry. The Court directed Respondent No.1 to pay the suspension allowance from the date of suspension and continue payment during the inquiry, and to complete the inquiry within six months.

Headnote

A) Labour Law - Suspension Allowance - Entitlement During Domestic Inquiry - Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969, Clause 34 of Scheme - Petitioner, a Mukadam, was suspended pending departmental proceedings and sought suspension allowance - Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to suspension allowance as per Clause 34 of the Scheme during the pendency of the domestic inquiry - Respondent No.1 directed to pay suspension allowance from the date of suspension and continue payment during inquiry (Paras 2-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to payment of suspension allowance during pendency of domestic inquiry against him by the Respondent No.1 Board.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court directed Respondent No.1 to pay the Petitioner suspension allowance from the date of suspension i.e. 14/06/2018 and continue payment during the pendency of the domestic inquiry. The inquiry to be completed within six months.

Law Points

  • Suspension allowance
  • subsistence allowance
  • domestic inquiry
  • Mukadam
  • Mathadi Act
  • Clause 34 of Scheme
  • entitlement during suspension
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 61

WRIT PETITION NO.11647 OF 2018

2018-10-30

R. M. SAVANT, NITIN W. SAMBRE

Mr. A K Jalisatgi I/by Mr. R R Mishra for the Petitioner, Mr. Meelan Topkar for the Respondent No.1, Mrs. R M Shinde, AGP for the Respondent/State

Tanaji Genba Pawge

Mumbai Vegetable Market Unprotected Workers Board, State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking direction for payment of suspension allowance during pendency of domestic inquiry.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought direction to Respondent No.1 to pay suspension allowance from the date of suspension and continue payment during the inquiry.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was suspended and not paid suspension allowance despite requests.

Issues

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to payment of suspension allowance during pendency of domestic inquiry.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he is entitled to suspension allowance as per Clause 34 of the Scheme. Respondent No.1 contended that the inquiry is under Section 13 of the Mathadi Act and not Clause 34.

Ratio Decidendi

A suspended employee is entitled to suspension allowance as per the applicable Scheme during the pendency of domestic inquiry, and the employer cannot deny payment on the ground that the inquiry is under a different provision if the suspension order itself refers to the Scheme.

Judgment Excerpts

The sole question that arises for our consideration in the above Writ Petition is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the payment of suspension allowance during pendency of the domestic inquiry against him by the Respondent No.1 Board. We are of the view that the Petitioner is entitled to the suspension allowance as per Clause 34 of the Scheme during the pendency of the domestic inquiry.

Procedural History

Petitioner was suspended on 14/06/2018, requested suspension allowance on 19/06/2018 and 31/07/2018, chargesheet issued on 23/08/2018, filed writ petition in 2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969: Section 13
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case — Circumstantial Evidence Fails to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Acquittal of Accused for Offences Under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Uphe...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Directs Payment of Suspension Allowance to Mukadam Pending Domestic Inquiry Under Mathadi Act. Petitioner entitled to subsistence allowance during suspension as per Clause 34 of the Scheme framed under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal...