Suspension wages and natural justice in employment: remuneration continued, dismissal stood, arrears were allowed, and policy revival was refused.

In an ordinary master-and-servant relationship without express service rules, suspension did not stop the employer's duty to pay remuneration, so the employee was entitled to salary and dearness allowance at the rate then being drawn when suspension began. The dismissal was upheld because the misconduct was proved, the charges were communicated, and an opportunity to respond was given; the absence of a further personal hearing did not vitiate the decision. The employee was also entitled to the balance of sanctioned arrears of pay, but no mandatory injunction could compel revival of the lapsed policy when his own premium obligations remained unpaid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to salary and dearness allowance during the period of suspension and, if so, at what rate; (ii) Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff was invalid and inoperative for want of observance of natural justice; (iii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to arrears of pay; (iv) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction directing revival of his policy.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to salary and dearness allowance during the period of suspension and, if so, at what rate

Analysis: The service relationship was one of master and servant, unregulated by any express contract or service rules. In such a case, suspension does not, by itself, suspend the obligation to pay remuneration. The plaintiff remained the servant of the company during the suspension period and was therefore entitled to the remuneration he was actually drawing at the time suspension commenced.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to salary and dearness allowance during suspension at the rate of Rs. 180 per month and Rs. 22 per month respectively.

Issue (ii): Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff was invalid and inoperative for want of observance of natural justice

Analysis: The dismissal was founded on proved misconduct, including the loans taken in the name of a friend to evade the prohibition contained in Section 29 of the Insurance Act. The plaintiff had been informed of the charges and given an opportunity to answer them. The absence of a personal hearing or further enquiries by the board did not vitiate the decision in the circumstances, because natural justice is not an inflexible rule overriding an otherwise just decision in an ordinary master and servant relationship.

Conclusion: The dismissal was not invalid or inoperative, and the plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration sought.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to arrears of pay

Analysis: The materials on record supported the plaintiff's claim that a sum had been sanctioned towards arrears of salary and that only a part had been paid. The court accepted the plaintiff's entitlement to the balance claimed under this head.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to arrears of pay of Rs. 3,024.

Issue (iv): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction directing revival of his policy

Analysis: The plaintiff had not paid his share of the premiums after suspension, and the policy had therefore been allowed to lapse into paid-up status. No legal basis was shown for compelling the company to revive the policy without the plaintiff performing his part of the bargain. Any remedy for alleged loss lay elsewhere, not by mandatory injunction.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to a mandatory injunction for revival of the policy.

Final Conclusion: The monetary reliefs relating to suspension wages and arrears were sustained, but the challenge to dismissal and the claim for revival of the policy failed, so the appeal and cross-objections were dismissed with costs.

---