Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.67 seconds)Section 10A in The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949
U.P. State Electricity Board And Ors vs Hari Shanker Jain And Ors on 28 August, 1978
5. In contrast, Mr. Bapat, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-workmen, submits that the effect of the 'no duty order' issued to the workmen pursuant to a charge-sheet and disciplinary proceedings being initiated against them amounts to depriving the respondent-workmen of work on account of disciplinary proceedings. This disciplinary action, he submits, is in accordance with the certified Standing Orders and, therefore, the respondent is entitled to subsistence allowance during the period when the enquiry was being held against him and no duty order was issued to them. He submits that since the certified Standing Orders do not contain any provisions regarding payment of subsistence allowance, one would have to turn to the Standing Orders Act. He submits that under Section 10-A of the Standing Orders Act, the subsistence allowance is payable to a workman at the stipulated rate and, therefore the respondent-workmen are entitled to the same. He fiirther submits that in any event, it is the Standing Orders Act which will prevail over both the B.P.M.C. Act as well as the service regulations of the Pune Municipal Transport. He relies on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shanker Jain and Ors., ; Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v. Presiding Officer and Anr., and judgment of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Keshav Ganpat Bhise and Anr., in support of this contention. He further submits that the word 'suspension' according to the OXFORD DICTIONARY means (sic) and therefore, if a workman had been temporarily deprived from being able to perform his duty with the petitioner would amount to suspension from service which would then, as a consequence, require the petitioner to pay subsistence allowance.
Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki vs Presiding Officer And Anr. on 8 May, 1986
5. In contrast, Mr. Bapat, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-workmen, submits that the effect of the 'no duty order' issued to the workmen pursuant to a charge-sheet and disciplinary proceedings being initiated against them amounts to depriving the respondent-workmen of work on account of disciplinary proceedings. This disciplinary action, he submits, is in accordance with the certified Standing Orders and, therefore, the respondent is entitled to subsistence allowance during the period when the enquiry was being held against him and no duty order was issued to them. He submits that since the certified Standing Orders do not contain any provisions regarding payment of subsistence allowance, one would have to turn to the Standing Orders Act. He submits that under Section 10-A of the Standing Orders Act, the subsistence allowance is payable to a workman at the stipulated rate and, therefore the respondent-workmen are entitled to the same. He fiirther submits that in any event, it is the Standing Orders Act which will prevail over both the B.P.M.C. Act as well as the service regulations of the Pune Municipal Transport. He relies on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shanker Jain and Ors., ; Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v. Presiding Officer and Anr., and judgment of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Keshav Ganpat Bhise and Anr., in support of this contention. He further submits that the word 'suspension' according to the OXFORD DICTIONARY means (sic) and therefore, if a workman had been temporarily deprived from being able to perform his duty with the petitioner would amount to suspension from service which would then, as a consequence, require the petitioner to pay subsistence allowance.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Pune Municipal Corporation vs Keshav Ganpat Bhise And Anr. on 5 April, 1983
5. In contrast, Mr. Bapat, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-workmen, submits that the effect of the 'no duty order' issued to the workmen pursuant to a charge-sheet and disciplinary proceedings being initiated against them amounts to depriving the respondent-workmen of work on account of disciplinary proceedings. This disciplinary action, he submits, is in accordance with the certified Standing Orders and, therefore, the respondent is entitled to subsistence allowance during the period when the enquiry was being held against him and no duty order was issued to them. He submits that since the certified Standing Orders do not contain any provisions regarding payment of subsistence allowance, one would have to turn to the Standing Orders Act. He submits that under Section 10-A of the Standing Orders Act, the subsistence allowance is payable to a workman at the stipulated rate and, therefore the respondent-workmen are entitled to the same. He fiirther submits that in any event, it is the Standing Orders Act which will prevail over both the B.P.M.C. Act as well as the service regulations of the Pune Municipal Transport. He relies on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shanker Jain and Ors., ; Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v. Presiding Officer and Anr., and judgment of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Keshav Ganpat Bhise and Anr., in support of this contention. He further submits that the word 'suspension' according to the OXFORD DICTIONARY means (sic) and therefore, if a workman had been temporarily deprived from being able to perform his duty with the petitioner would amount to suspension from service which would then, as a consequence, require the petitioner to pay subsistence allowance.
1