M.P.THAKKAR - (1.) Sympathy for one should not result in cruelty to others. Not at any rate (1) when the question of interpretation of a legal doctrine arises in a labour dispute and (2) when in order to immunize the industrial employer from the economic injury (which is an occupational hazard for him and which he can normally absorb without tears or sobs or being economically crippled) arising from delays in Courts and Tribunals economic injury has to be inflicted on the workers (who are bound to be economically crippled thereby). This proposition can scarcely be disputed as late as today when Twentieth Century is just about to close its jaws. It cannot be disputed at least in India where socialistic goals are proclaimed with rightful pride in the Preamble and woven in the texture of the Constitution without feeling shy or coy about the same. The very credibility of that proposition is at stake in the present matter as will become evident very soon.
(2.) A question of considerable importance which appears to be res integra has arisen on an unprecedented fact situation. The question is as regards the right of a workman to claim wages for the period commencing from the date on which he is placed under suspension pending decision of the competent authority on the application (under sec. 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947) for permission to dismiss the employee concerned during the pendency of the long drawn proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal till the date on which such application is disposed of as having become incompetent on the ground that the main industrial disputes have already been disposed of by the Tribunal before permission as prayed could be granted or refused.
(3.) The question has assumed a new dimension and significance because with the backlog of arrears the proceedings before the Tribunal and Courts consume innumerable years. So far as his right to claim wages for the period of suspension during the pendency of the proceedings seeking permission wherein such permission is ultimately granted or refused the law is well settled. In case permission is granted the workman would not be entitled to any wages. In case permission is refused the workman concerned will have to be paid full wages along with other benefits as if the order of suspension was non-est. There is however no decision of the Supreme Court of India or any other High Court in the context of a fact situation parallel to the fact situation obtaining in the present case that is to say a case where the application for permission is neither granted nor refused but is disposed of as haying become incompetent. Apart from this vital question some other questions have also been raised (to which reference will be made in the course of discussion hereinafter) but ultimately the arguments have centred mainly around this question.;