Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Andhra Pradesh Road Transport ... vs Payment Of Wages Authority And Anr. on 8 April, 1968

United Catalysts (India) Ltd. vs Prabhat Motibhai Gohil And Anr. on 17 April, 2000

In the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Judicature, reported in the matter of A. P. Road Transport Corporation Limited v. The Payment of Wages Authority and Anr. 1970 (1) LLJ 700, it is held that, 'the Payment of Wages Act, Section 2(6) wages claimed for payment of subsistence allowance pending domestic inquiry - Authority under the Payment of Wages Act having jurisdiction to entertain the claim wherein the same definition has been interpreted by the High Court that the relevant words, 'which would if the terms of employment express or implied were fulfilled' includes the payment of subsistence allowance, when the employee is suspended during the inquiry into the charges levelled against him. A close reading of this definition would indicate that it is not an exhaustive definition. On the other hand, it includes certain items apart from the general language used in the main definition. It also excluded certain items mentioned in the definition. It is not disputed that the case of subsistence allowance of the nature which concerned is not expressly excluded by the definition, nor it is expressly included. The objection of the Advocate for the petitioner was that payment of subsistence allowance is not a term of employment because payment of subsistence allowance is discretionary and not obligatory on the part of the employer. It is difficult to accept this contention. The relevant words of the definition, 'which would, if the terms of employment express or implied, were fulfilled', in my opinion include the payment of subsistence allowance when the employee is suspended during the inquiry into certain charges against him.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Karnataka Central Cooperative Bank ... vs Karpi on 13 October, 1986

10. Learned Counsel Sri Gururajan referred me to the decision in Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. Payment of Wages Authority 35 FJR 417. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the subsistence allowance payable to an employee who has been placed under suspension pending enquiry into alleged acts of misconduct, will fall within the definition of "wages" in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, notwithstanding that the payment of the allowance is a matter of discretion of the employer under the rules of service and that once payment of subsistence allowance has been given, in the absence of any rule providing for its withdrawal, the payment must be continued and that therefore, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, will have jurisdiction to deal with a claim for the payment of subsistence allowance which has been withheld by the employer. It was a case where the subsistence allowance itself was withheld. The said case does not consider the question as to whether any loss of wages on account of the suspension, would amount to a deduction from the wages within the meaning of Sections 7 and 15 of the Act. As already stated above by me, Section 7 of the Act makes it absolutely clear that any loss of the wages resulting from suspension will not amount to a deduction from wages in any case within the meaning of the Act. Sub-sistence allowance is given so that an employee should survive to face the enquiry. It is not on account of any service rendered to the employer that the subsistence allowance is give. Subsistence allowance is given not by way of wages, but only with a view to see that the employee struggles to survive in order to face the enquiry. Therefore, subsistence allowance, even viewed from any angle, will not amount to wages within the meaning of the Act at all.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1