Judgment:
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in C.P.No.6 of 1998 on the file of the second respondent viz., the Central Government Labour Court, Chennai and quash the order dated 18.6.2003.)
ORDER
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the State Bank of India challenging the impugned award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.No.6 of 1998, dated 18.6.2003.
2. The only short issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition is that when the first respondent D.Chandrasekaran was dismissed from service of the petitioner Bank by the order dated 12.12.1982 and the said dismissal order was also upheld finally by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.7 of 1987, dated 23.5.1994, whether the Tribunal is legally right to postpone the order of dismissal dated 12.12.1982 giving effect to the same from the date of passing of the award namely, 23.5.1994 by virtue of which the petitioner employer is liable to pay the salary of the dismissed employee for a period of 16 years namely from 1978 to 1994?
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that though the earlier award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.7 of 1987, dated 23.5.1994 has not been challenged, the subsequent Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.6 of 1998 holding that the first respondent is entitled to receive all the monetary benefits from the date of suspension till the date of award passed in I.D.No.7 of 1987 has been challenged by the petitioner Bank, hence the illegality committed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with.
4. Firstly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has erred in passing the Award in I.D.No.7 of 1987 by wrongly postponing the order of dismissal dated 11.12.1982 passed by the petitioner Bank to 23.5.1994, the date of passing of the Award. In C.P.No.6 of 1998, the Industrial Tribunal again committed second error in spite of the fault committed in I.D.No.7 of 1987, that the first respondent is entitled to receive all the monetary benefits from the date of suspension till the date of award passed in I.D.No.7 of 1987. Hence, the petitioner Bank was constrained to treat the period namely, from the year 1978 till the date of passing of the award i.e., on 23.5.1994 as period of suspension and paid the subsistence allowance amounting to Rs.2,13,385/- in three instalments.
5. Secondly, it was submitted before this Court that in obedience to the direction given by this Court on 14.7.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.44750 of 2003 in W.P.No.36850 of 2003, the petitioner Bank has deposited a sum of Rs.6,26,343/- in a Nationalised Bank.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on Clause 521 (10)(b) of the SASTRI AWARD argued that if any employee, who faced an enquiry, is ultimately found to be innocent and for which, he is entitled to full wages and allowances for the period of suspension, yet it is up to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to restrict the payment of wages during the period of suspension. Clause 521 (10)(b) of the SASTRI AWARD reads as follows:
"Pending such inquiry he may be suspended, but if on the conclusion of the enquiry it is decided to take no action against him he shall be deemed to have been on duty and shall be entitled to the full wages and allowances and to all other privileges for the period of suspension; and if some punishment other than dismissal is inflicted the whole or a part of the period of suspension, may, at the discretion of the management, be treated as on duty with the right to a corresponding portion of the wages, allowances etc."
7. The first respondent–D.Chandrasekaran, while working in Palakarai Branch of the petitioner-Bank, on the allegation of having indulged in some malpractices, pending investigation, was placed under suspension. After issuance of charge sheet on 27.09.1978, a domestic enquiry was conducted and ultimately, he was dismissed from service on 11.12.1982. As against the order of dismissal, he raised a dispute and by Award dated 23.05.1994, the Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal, holding that the enquiry conducted into the charges was fair and proper. However, the Tribunal found that there was inordinate delay in the process of conducting enquiry and therefore, the dismissal was directed to be given effect to only from the date of Award viz., 25.03.1984. It was further held that the employee must be deemed to have been under suspension from 19.08.1978 to 23.05.1994.
8. The period which the employee was placed under suspension pending enquiry and receiving subsistence allowance can never be treated as 'duty period' unless such employee is exonerated from the charges. In the present case, the order of dismissal was affirmed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the employee, who suffered suspension, cannot claim annual increment or wage revision or change in the wage structure for the period during which he was placed under suspension. Besides, the employee was also paid with subsistence allowance during the entire period of suspension, therefore, postponing the date of dismissal to take effect only from the date of the Award is absolutely unwarranted. However, the Bank/petitioner herein having not challenged that main part of the order has only challenged the subsequent order dated 18.06.1993, passed by the Tribunal in C.P.No.6 of 1998. In any event, this Court, by taking note of the fact that the petitioner is aged about 68 years, to meet the ends of justice, without going into merits of the case, instead of directing payment of salary for 16 years as ordered by the Tribunal for the period not worked, deems it proper to direct the petitioner/Bank to pay Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only). Since it seems that the Award amount of Rs.6,26,343/- has already been deposited by the petitioner-Bank, the first respondent is permitted to withdraw Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) by making out proper application before the Labour Court and the Bank also is permitted to withdraw the balance amount.
9. With the above said direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.44750 of 2003 is closed.