JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the legality of order dated 10.12.90 and 14.12.94. Vide order dated 10.12.90 the Tribunal had held that domestic inquiry was vitiated and vide order dated 14.12.94 the Tribunal passed an order directing the management to pay a sum of Rs. 800/- per month to the workman with effect from 25.7.1986 till the final Award was passed.
2. As far as writ petition against order dated 10.12.1990 holding that the inquiry was vitiated is concerned, it ought to be dismissed since the petitioner will get a chance to lead evidence before Tribunal to prove misconduct of the workman, I therefore, dismiss the writ petition against order dated 10.12.1990.
3. As far as interim relief to the workman is concerned this Court in Delhi State Cooperative Bank v. R.C. Yaduvanshi and Anr. 34 (1998) DLT 258, held that Labour Court had jurisdiction to grant interim relief in case Labour Court prima facie comes to the conclusion that perhaps Workman did not deserve punishment of dismissal in view of facts disclosed before the Labour Court and that the inquiry held against Workman was prima facie defective: This Court held:
4. The remaining question which is to be decided by me is whether the Labour Court was justified in granting full wages to the Workman when Workman is not man rendering any services to the management. In such like cases 50% of the wages ought to have been granted as is the norm. In Hotal Imperial, New Delhi and Ors. and Hotel Workers’ Union (1959) 2 LLJ 544, it was observed by the highest court that ordinarily the interim relief should not be the whole relief that the Workman would get if they succeed finally. The Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd v. Rameshwar Dayal and Anr. (1960-61) 19 FJR 315. But in this case the Tribunal had passed the order of reinstatement of payment of full wages as interim relief. It was held by the Supreme Court that till the matter is finally decided the Workman should not be directed to be reinstated as in interim relief because that would amount to giving the Workman at the outset the relief to which he would be entitled only if the employer failed in the proceedings.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the order made by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ No. 2686/86, Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited and Ors. v. Jagdish Singh, made on February 24, 1987, in which again 50% of the wages plus allowances have been allowed as the interim relief. Counsel for the respondent has, however, argued that if 50% of the wages are to be allowed as interim relief then the Workman should be allowed in addition full allowances as are available to Workman who is suspended. He has drawn my attention to Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited (Service Rule) which lays down in Rule 18 Sub-clause (viii) that during the period of suspension an employee shall be paid suspension allowance equal to 50% of his salary along with full usual allowances. The Workman in the present case cannot be deemed to be under suspension. So, the aforesaid rule is not applicable. In the case of Delhi State Coop. Bank Limited (supra) 50% of the salary plus allowances have been granted as interim relief. I, hence, allow the writ petition partly and modify the impugned order to the extent that the Workman shall be entitled to have 50% of the salary and allowances during the pendency of the reference before the Labour Court. The arrears shall be paid to the workman within one month from today. The parties are left to bear their own costs in this writ petition.
4. In the present case Workman has been allowed full last drawn wages by the Tribunal as interim relief. The Workman was not rendering any service to the management. The plea of the Tribunal is that if no interim relief is granted, the workman would not be able to defend himself during the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal. There was no pleading that the workman was gainfully employed anywhere. Looking into all aspects and the fact that even after reinstatement workman may not be entitled to full back wages as a rule in view of recent pronouncements by Supreme Court, I consider that it would be proper if the workman is allowed 50% of the last drawn wages as interim relief.
5. The writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 14.12.1994 is modified and the workman be paid 50% of last drawn wages i.e. Rs. 400/- per month, with effect from 25.7.1986, till the passing of the Award.