Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
T.Narasimha Das vs The Ap. Dairy Development Cooperative ... on 6 April, 2022 cites

Shyam Sunder Mal vs Rajasthan High Court on 1 August, 2000

8. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court was seized of the similar issue in the case of Shyam Sunder Mal Vs. Rajasthan High Court (1 supra) and the Hon'ble High Court has held that the subsistence allowance during the suspension is not only a mere question of term of a contract of employment, but forms part of the constitutional theme of procedural reasonableness and rule against arbitrariness and therefore denying the full pay and dearness allowance for the period of suspension by adjusting the period of suspension against leave without pay is not sustainable. For the sake of clarity and ready reference, the relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Management Of Hotel Imperial, New ... vs Hotel Workers' Union on 21 May, 1959

Position of law where suspension is authorised under terms of service may be stated thus. Where there is power conferred on the employer to suspend an employee, whether under express form in the contract or under the rules governing the terms and conditions of service, the order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relation of master and servant, without terminating it, with the consequence that employee is not bound to render the service and the employer is not bound to pay. In such a case employee is not entitled to receive any payment at all from the employer, unless terms of condition envisages some payment as subsistence allowance. This principle was enunciated in Management of Imperial Hotel, New Delhi Vs. Hotel Workers Union, and in R.P. Kapur Vs. U.O.I. & Anr., and V.P. Gindroniya Vs. State of M.P. (10).
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 349 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

R.P. Kapur vs Union Of India And Anr on 19 November, 1963

Position of law where suspension is authorised under terms of service may be stated thus. Where there is power conferred on the employer to suspend an employee, whether under express form in the contract or under the rules governing the terms and conditions of service, the order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relation of master and servant, without terminating it, with the consequence that employee is not bound to render the service and the employer is not bound to pay. In such a case employee is not entitled to receive any payment at all from the employer, unless terms of condition envisages some payment as subsistence allowance. This principle was enunciated in Management of Imperial Hotel, New Delhi Vs. Hotel Workers Union, and in R.P. Kapur Vs. U.O.I. & Anr., and V.P. Gindroniya Vs. State of M.P. (10).
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 374 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 5 January, 1977

[8] In State of M.P. vs. State of Maharashtra (12), it was laid down that suspension merely suspends employee's claim to salary. During suspension there is suspension allowance. Real effect of order of suspension is that though he continues to be in service, he is not permitted to work and is paid only subsistence allowance which is less than his salary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 66 - A N Ray - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Chandrabhan Tale on 7 July, 1983

The necessity and compulsion to pay subsistence allowance during the suspension pending enquiry can be said to be a part of essentials of fair and just procedure to conduct an enquiry which W.P.No.18884 of 2004 13 can be attributed to rule against unreasonableness and arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution and right to life, which includes livelihood, under Article 21 of the Constitution. This can be seen from the fact that where subsistence allowance has not been paid to an employee under suspension during enquiry disabling him from participating in the enquiry has been held to result in violation of natural justice vitiating the enquiry itself. Reference in this connection may be made to Inderjit C. Parkeh & Ors. Vs. H. K. Bhatt and another (13), and Ghanshamdas vs. State of M.P. Reference in this connection may also be made to State of Maharashtra vs. Chandrabhen Tale. It was a case where a nominal subsistence allowance of Re. 1/- was paid to the employee under suspension during pendency of his appeal against an order of conviction because he was on bail, under proviso to Rule 151 and was not paid his normal subsistence allowance. The Court upheld the contention raised with reference to Arts. 14, 16, 21 & 311(2) of the Constitution challenging the validity of such provisions providing reduced subsistence allowance which is Illusory and meaningless on the ground that reduction in normal subsistence allowance to an employee who is prohibited from engaging himself in any other vocation during the period of suspension contravenes Art.12 and also Art. 14 & 16 being unreasonable and directed that normal subsistence allowance must be paid irrespective of whether he is undergoing imprisonment or on bail, and said proviso to Rule 151 envisaging paying a nominal subsistence allowance of Re. 1/- was held to be unreasonable, unconstitutional and void.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 167 - O C Reddy - Full Document

V. P. Gindroniya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 29 January, 1970

Position of law where suspension is authorised under terms of service may be stated thus. Where there is power conferred on the employer to suspend an employee, whether under express form in the contract or under the rules governing the terms and conditions of service, the order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relation of master and servant, without terminating it, with the consequence that employee is not bound to render the service and the employer is not bound to pay. In such a case employee is not entitled to receive any payment at all from the employer, unless terms of condition envisages some payment as subsistence allowance. This principle was enunciated in Management of Imperial Hotel, New Delhi Vs. Hotel Workers Union, and in R.P. Kapur Vs. U.O.I. & Anr., and V.P. Gindroniya Vs. State of M.P. (10).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 82 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 Next