2014 (2) TMI 1431 - HC - Indian Laws

Workman entitled to full wages during put off duty period as it cannot be equated with suspension

B. Eswaraiah Versus Presiding Officer

The HC held that put off duty cannot be equated with suspension in the absence of statutory support from Corporation Regulations, 1963. The court ruled ... Entitlement for payment of full wages - Whether, in the absence of any specific provision in the Regulations, 1963 of the Corporation specifying put off duty as an interim measure pending departmental proceedings, the workman is entitled to payment of full wages or whether the said put off duty can be treated as suspension pending enquiry as in the case of the regular workman of the Corporation? HELD THAT:- When the subsequent co-equal bench renders the judgment in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement of co-equal bench, the judgment of the previous bench will have binding effect. On the other hand, if the latter bench refers to the earlier one and distinguishes it, to that extent of distinction, the latter one binds. The put off duty cannot be equated with suspension and in the absence of any statutory support from the Regulations, 1963, it shall be treated as absence of the workman induced by compulsive proscription on the part of the 2nd respondent Corporation, which, in fact, denied him an opportunity to work during the said period. The petitioner - in the light of the submissions of the 2nd respondent Corporation that already 50% of the wages have been paid - shall be entitled to the remaining 50% of the wages for the put off duty period with effect from 03.05.2002 to 27.03.2003. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent Corporation is hereby directed to pay the said differential amount of 50% for the put off duty period, as early as possible, at any rate, not beyond two months' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of 'put off duty' as a mode of punishment or suspension under A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.2. Entitlement to full wages for the period of 'put off duty'.3. Judicial precedents and conflicting judgments on 'put off duty'.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of 'put off duty' as a mode of punishment or suspension under A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963:The petitioner, a casual driver, was removed from service on allegations of misconduct after being placed on 'put off duty' from 03.05.2002 to 27.03.2003. The petitioner contended that 'put off duty' is not a recognized mode of punishment or suspension under the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963. The Court observed that 'put off duty' is not specified in the Regulations, 1963 as an interim measure pending departmental proceedings. Various precedents affirm that 'put off duty' cannot be equated with suspension and is not a lawful directive under the Regulations.2. Entitlement to full wages for the period of 'put off duty':The petitioner claimed full wages for the period he was on 'put off duty', arguing that he should be treated as being on duty during that period since the directive was illegal. The respondent Corporation argued that as a daily wage employee, the petitioner was only entitled to wages for days worked and, alternatively, could be likened to a suspended regular employee entitled to subsistence allowance. The Court noted that the petitioner had already been paid 50% of the wages for the put off period. Citing previous judgments, the Court concluded that the petitioner should be paid the remaining 50% of the wages for the period from 03.05.2002 to 27.03.2003.3. Judicial precedents and conflicting judgments on 'put off duty':The Court reviewed several judicial precedents on 'put off duty'. Earlier judgments by single and division benches consistently held that 'put off duty' is not a recognized form of suspension and that employees are entitled to full wages during such periods. However, a conflicting judgment by a division bench in Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nellore v. Sk. Gulam Rasool treated 'put off duty' as suspension, entitling the employee to subsistence allowance. The Court resolved this conflict by adhering to the principle that the earlier judgment, which dealt with the issue more comprehensively and accurately, should prevail. Consequently, the Court held that 'put off duty' cannot be equated with suspension, and the petitioner was entitled to full wages for the period he was prevented from working.Conclusion:The Court directed the respondent Corporation to pay the petitioner the remaining 50% of the wages for the put off duty period from 03.05.2002 to 27.03.2003 within two months, thus allowing the writ petition.