B.D. SHETTY AND ORS. versus M/S. CEAT LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 511 · Decided: 30-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

B.D. SHETTY AND ORS. 
v. 
MIS. CEAT LTD. AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 30, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: 
Section 10-A( 1 )(b)-Subsistence allowance-Payment o.f-Expression 
"delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings directly attributable to tlie 
conduct of workman" -Scope of-Stay of disciplinary proceedings pending 
ctiminal trial by Labour Court~Reduction of subsistence allowance on the 
ground that there was delay on the part of workmen in completing the discipli-
nary proceedings-Validity of-Held, stay of disciplinary proceedings by com-
petent court pending criminal trial does not amount to "delay directly attrib-
utable to the conduct of workmen "-It is only where the workman unjustifiably 
or deliberately drags or prolongs the domestic inquiry without any order of the 
Court-Thus, in the instant case workmen entitled to subsistence allowance at 
the rate of 75%. 
Section 10-A( 3 )-Subsistence allowance-Rate of payment-Claim for 
100% subsistence allowance under Model Standing Orders on the ground that 
they are more beneficial-Entitlement of-Expression "provisions of such 
other law"-Scope o.f-Held, the expression refers to the law other than the 
one covered by the Act and Rules made thereunder-Model Standing Orders 
are part of 1959 Rules .framed under the Act-Thus, do not come witlzin the 
purview of "other law"-Claim for 100% subsistence allowance there.fore, 
rejected-Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959-
Clause 25(5-A). 
Interpretation o.f statutes : 
Beneficial legislation-Interpretation of-Held, should be understood 
and construed in its proper and correct perspective to advance legislative 
intention underlying it-The view which is in tune with the legislative intention 
and furthers the same should be preferred to the one which would.frustrate 11. 
511 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Words and Phrases: 
"Delay directly attributable to the conduct of workman" -Meaning of in 
the context of Section JO-A( 1 )( b) of the industrial Employment (Standing 
Orders) Act, 1946. 
B 
"Pro~isions o.f such other law "-Meaning of in the context o.f Section 10-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A( 3) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. 
Appellant-workmen of the respondent company resigned from the 
membership of a trade union and accepted the membership of another 
union. Vice-President of the trade union from which they resigned made a 
false complaint of assault against them. Appellants were arrested and 
subsequently released on bail. Thereafter they were suspended from serv-
ice on acc~~nt of the criminal cases. After issuing chargesheet unde~ the 
Model Standing Orders, domestic inquiry was initiated against them; Ap-
pellants' co.mplaint for not proceeding with the.domestic inquiry till the 
conclusion of criminal trial was allowed by Labour Court. The respondent 
filed revision application beforethe Indust.rial Court. During the pendency 
of revision, the respondent reduced the rate of subsistence allowance of the 
appellants from 75% to 50% alleging that there was a delay on the part of 
the appellants in completing the domestic inquiry. The appellants filed 
complaint before the Industrial Court, which dismissed the complaint. 
Appellants' appeal and Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court were 
also dismissed. Hence the present appeal by the workmen. 
'· 
H was contended on behalf of appellants that the delay in completion 
of domestic inquiry was not directly ~ttributable to them when a compe· 
tent judicial authority had stayed the departmental proceedings pending 
criminal trial and thus it could not be considered as a delay covered by 
Section 10-A(l)(b) of the Act; that they were entitled for 100% subsistence 
allowance after 180 days of the suspension under Clause 25(5~A) of the 
Model Standing Orders framed under the Bombay Industrial Employ~ 
ment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 which being more beneficial prevails 
over S.10-A(3) of the Act. 
· ' 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court· 
HELD : 1.1. Stay of disciplinary proceedings by Labour Court pend-
ing criminal trial docs not amount to delay in completion of discipHnary 
.. 
r 
l I 
,._ . 
r 
' 
} 
·. 
•, 
8.D. SHEITY v. CEAT LTD. 
513 
proceedings "directly attributable to the conduct of workman ''under 
Section 10-A(l)(b) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 
1946. Thus, th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.