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

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

Stay of disciplinary proceedings by a competent court pending criminal trial is not delay directly attributable to the conduct of the workman under Section 10-A(1)(b); thus, workmen are entitled to 75% subsistence allowance after 90 days of suspension. The Model Standing Orders do not constitute 'other law' under Section 10-A(3) for the purpose of claiming a higher subsistence allowance.

Parties
Appellants: B.D. Shetty and Ors.; Respondents: M/s. CEAT Ltd. and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Decision on Appeal From Decision of Bombay High Court in L.p.a. No. 308 of 1999
Outcome
Appeal allowed partly
Legal Topics
Subsistence Allowance, Disciplinary Proceedings, Interpretation of 'delay Directly Attributable', Application of Model Standing Orders Vs. Act, Beneficial Legislation
Labour Law Interpretation of Statutes Subsistence Allowance Disciplinary Proceedings Interpretation of 'delay Directly Attributable' Application of Model Standing Orders Vs. Act Beneficial Legislation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.D. Shetty and Ors.

Appellants

M/s. CEAT Ltd. and Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Decision on Appeal From Decision of Bombay High Court in L.p.a. No. 308 of 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in disciplinary proceedings caused by a bona fide stay order of a competent judicial authority is 'delay directly attributable to the conduct of workman' under Section 10-A(1)(b) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
  2. 2 Whether workmen are entitled to 100% subsistence allowance under Clause 25(5-A) of the Model Standing Orders or only what is prescribed in Section 10-A(1)(b) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Stay of disciplinary proceedings by a competent court pending criminal trial is not delay directly attributable to the conduct of the workman under Section 10-A(1)(b); thus, workmen are entitled to 75% subsistence allowance after 90 days of suspension. The Model Standing Orders do not constitute 'other law' under Section 10-A(3) for the purpose of claiming a higher subsistence allowance.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed partly

Orders

  • Impugned order set aside; appellants entitled to subsistence allowance at 75% rate after 90 days of suspension, not 100%.
  • Industrial Tribunal, Thane, directed to dispose of pending Revision Applications (ULP Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 1998) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.