MANSINGH R PARMAR Vs. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an employee of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereafter referred to as "the Corporation") was dismissed from service by an order dated 9 -9 -1981. Thereafter the respondent Corporation applied to the Conciliation Officer under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") for approval of the action taken by it. On 2 -1 -1982, respondent No. 2 passed an order suspending the petitioner from service during pendency of the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer. He informed the petitioner that he would not be entitled to draw any wages, subsistence allowance or compensation during the said period of suspension. What is challenged in this petition is not the order of suspension, but the decision of the respondent Corporation not to pay any wages, subsistence allowance or compensation to the petitioner during the pendency of the said proceedings.

(2.) Mr. Chari, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to receive subsistence allowance even for the period of suspension during pendency of the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer. He relied upon Regulation 83(b) of the Gujarat State Transport Employees' Service Regulations (hereafter referred to as "the Regulations") in support of his above submission. It reads as under:

(3.) Regulation 83(b) occurs in Chapter V which is captioned as "Disciplinary action and punishment". Regulation 80 authorizes the Corporation to specify acts of misconduct or omission which are liable to be treated as "acts of misconduct" or "minor lapses or delinquencies", to prescribe a procedure for dealing with cases of acts of misconduct and minor lapses and delinquencies and to appoint appropriate authorities to impose punishments and to hear appeals or order disciplinary action. Regulation 82 authorizes the Competent Authority to suspend an employee charged with any act of misconduct pending enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Regulation 80. Regulation 83 (a) provides that in the case of suspension, the decision shall be given within 90 days from the date of suspension. It further provides that if no decision is arrived at within 90 days for any reason except the employee's own default, the employee will be eligible to be treated, after the expiry of 90 days, as if he had not been suspended. However, the Corporation has been given power to extend the said period of 90 days in exceptional cases. Regulation 83(b) provides that an employee who has been suspended from work in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Regulation 80 shall, during the period of suspension, be entitled to a subsistence allowance, which may not be less than l/4th nor more than 1/2 of the basic pay, plus the allowances specified in the said Regulation but with which we are not concerned in this petition. A combined reading of these Regulations makes it amply clear that suspension referred to in Regulation 83(b) is suspension during pendency of a departmental enquiry of proceeding. Obviously, it has no reference to suspension after the disciplinary action is over.