JUDGMENT
S.U. Khan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Respondents 3 and 4 Indrajeet Singh Pal and J.K. Dey Sarkar were two of the employees of the petitioner. Both were suspended pending inquiry on 23.2.1981. Ultimately against both the contesting respondents punishment orders were passed. Against respondent No. 3, Indrajeet Singh Pal, punishment order was passed on 29.9.1981. The punishment was of reduction of pay by five stages with immediate effect Punishment order against J.K. Dey Sarkar was passed on 3.10.1981. The punishment was reduction of pay by three stages.
3. During suspension period the contesting respondents were paid subsistence allowance. After punishment orders a dispute arose in respect of payment of balance amount for the suspension period. The matter was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court. The reference was to the effect as to whether nonpayment of the balance amount for the suspension period from 23.2.1981 to 27.8.1981 in the case of Indrajeet Singh Pal and from 23.2.1981 to 24.9.1981 in the case of J.K. Dey Sarkar was valid or not.
4. The matter was registered before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, UP. Ghaziabad as Adjudication Case No. 127 of 1983. The Labour Court held that the contesting respondents were entitled to the balance salary for the suspension period. The said order is challenged through this writ petition by the employer.
5. Labour Court based its award on interpretation of certified Standing Orders of the employer in question.
6. In para 15.3 (a) of the Standing Order, power of suspension is provided to the employer. Under Clause (b) of the said Standing Order the rate of payment during suspension period is provided. Paragraph 15 (3) ( c) and (d) of the Standing Orders are relevant for deciding the question involved in this writ petition. The said paragraphs are quoted below:
15.3 (c) If on the conclusions of the enquiry or, as the case may be, of the criminal proceedings, the workman has been found guilty of the charges framed against him and it is considered, after giving the workman concerned a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed, that an order of dismissal or suspension or fine or stoppage of annual increment with or without cumulative effect or reductionism in rank would meet the ends of justice, the employer shall pass an order accordingly.
Provided that where an order of dismissal is passed under this clause, the workman shall be deemed to have been absent from duty during the period of suspension and shall not be entitled to any remuneration for such period, and the subsistence allowance, already paid to him shall not be recovered.
(d) If on the conclusion of the enquiry, or as the case may be, of the criminal proceedings, the workman has been found to be not guilty of any of the charges framed against him, he shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension and shall be entitled to the same wages and privileges as he would have received if he had not been placed under suspension, after deducting the subsistence allowance paid to him for such period, within 10 days from the date of communicating the decision.
7. From the perusal of the above it is quite clear that the Standing Orders provide only for two contingencies – one is when order of dismissal is passed and the other is when workman has been found to be not guilty of any of the charges framed against him. There is no provision under the aforesaid Standing Orders for the contingency like the present one i.e. when workman has been found guilty of the charge but in stead of punishment of dismissal some other punishment like reduction in pay etc. is passed. The Standing Order is silent about such situation. Accordingly the matter has to be decided on the general principles.
8. If there is no rule regarding payment or non-payment of balance amount of the salary during the suspension period, then the balance amount has to be paid. Withholding the balance amount is neither one of the punishments prescribed under the Standing Orders nor in fact such punishment was included in the punishment order. The Supreme Court in Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra has held that even in the absence of any provision, employer is entitled to restrain an employee from working during continuance of contract of employment (popularly known as suspension), however for the said period employee is entitled to full salary unless a contrary provision is there. Accordingly, workmen are entitled to the balance salary during suspension period.
9. I, therefore, do not find any error in the impugned award. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.