RAM LAKHAN ETC. ETC. versus PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 463 · Decided: 17-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
RAM LAKHAN ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 17, 1999 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD, D.P. MOHAPATRA AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
S. 33(1)-Employees under suspension-Claim for Subsistence 
Allowance-Industrial dispute pending before Industrial Tribunal- C 
Employer's application for permission to dismiss the employees on completion 
of inquiry-Held, Management can, pending disposal of the application, 
place the employee under suspension, but it has to pay Subsistence Allowance 
to the employee-No conflict between Hotel Imperial's case• and Fakirbhai's 
case**-Subsistence Allowance shall be paid to the employees for the whole D 
period of suspension as provided under the Standing Orders or under the 
Rules-If there is no such provision, they would be entitled to be paid full 
salary even during the period of suspension. 
*The Management, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi & Ors. v. Hotel Workers' 
Union, AIR (1959) SC 1342, 
E 
**Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v. Presiding Officer & Anr., [1986] 3 
SCC 131 = (1986) 2 SCR 1059 = AIR (1986) SC 1168, explained and 
reiterated. 
TCajeev. U. JormanikSiem, (1961] 1SCR750=AIR(1961) SC276; p 
R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, (1964J 5 SCR 431 = AIR 1964 SC 787; 
Balvantray Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra, [1968] 2 SCR 577 =AIR 
(1968) SC 800; State of Madhya Pradesh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 
AIR (1977) SC 1466 = (1977] 2 SCR 555 = (19771 2 SCC 288; State of 
Maharashtra v. Chanderbhan, [1983] 3 SCR 337 = (1983] 3 SCC 387 = 
AIR, (1983) SC 803; O.P. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 328 G 
and Khem Chandv. Union of India, (1963) Supp. 1 SCR 229 =AIR, (1963) 
SC 687. 
V.P. Gindroniya v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., AIR (1970) SC 
1494; The Vice-Chancellor, Jammu University & Anr. v. Dushinant Kumar 
463 
H 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R 
A Rampa/, AIR (1977) SC 1146 and Capt. M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines 
Ltd & Anr., [1999] 2 SCC 456 = [199913SCC679, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6566of1999. 
WITH 
B 
C.A. Nos. 6567/1999 and 6568/1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.94 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W.P. No. 4279of1994. 
Rajirider Sachar, Mahesh Srivastava, V.D. Khanna, Ms. Ninnala Gupta 
C and J.M. Nanavati for Mis. J.M. Nanavati Associates for the Appellants. 
D 
E 
Harvinder Singh, Deepak Sabharwal and B.R. Sabharwal for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 
The appellants were the employees of the Swatantra Bharat Mill against 
whom charge-sheets were issued in the year 1986 and they were subsequently 
suspended. 
Since an industrial dispute was already pending before the Industrial 
Tribunal vide Delhi Administration Notification No. F-24(798)/94-Lab dated 
1.4.86, an application was filed by the management under Section 33(1) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 for permission to dismiss the employees on 
completion of enquiry. This application was opposed by the appellants who 
F filed objections and claimed that they were entitled to be paid Subsistence 
Allowance during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings for the period 
of suspension. On this, the Tribunal framed the following preliminary issue:-
G 
"At what rate, if any, the Management is to pay the subsistence 
allowance to the workman" 
The Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal, Tis Hazari, Delhi, relying upon 
the decision of this Court in The Management, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi & 
Ors. v. Hotel Workers Union, AIR [1959] SC 1342, dismissed the objections 
of the appellants and held that they were not entitled to any Subsistence 
Allowance. The appellants thereafter filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of 
H Delhi which were dismissed by the impugned judgment reading as under:-
RAM LAKHAN v. PRESIDING OFFICER [S. SAGHR AHMAD, J.] 465 
"In view of the decision of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in A 
the case of The Management, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi & Ors. v. 
Hotel Workers' Union reported as AIR (1959) SC 1342, we are not 
inclined to interfere in this petition. 
Dismissed." 
It appears that the decision of this Court in Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki 
v. Presiding officer & Anr., [ 1986] 3 SCC 131 = [ 1986] 2 SCR I 059 = AIR (1986) 
SC 1168, was cited before the High Court, but it did not follow the decision 
and preferred to follow the Judgment in Hotel Jmperial's case (supra).
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.