https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313046 In the absence of express regulatory authority, a "put off duty" order during departmental proceedings could not be treated as suspension pending enquiry. The High Court noted that the Corporation's Regulations did not recognise "put off duty" as a valid interim measure and treated it as an unsupported denial of work, not as suspension with only suspension allowance payable. Applying the doctrine of precedent, it held that a later co-equal bench view made without due consideration of earlier binding decisions could not displace the earlier line of authority. The workman was therefore entitled to wages for the period of enforced non-employment, and the employer had to pay the remaining balance of wages already partly paid. en-us Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Mar 2024 20:20:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313046 In the absence of express regulatory authority, a "put off duty" order during departmental proceedings could not be treated as suspension pending enquiry. The High Court noted that the Corporation's Regulations did not recognise "put off duty" as a valid interim measure and treated it as an unsupported denial of work, not as suspension with only suspension allowance payable. Applying the doctrine of precedent, it held that a later co-equal bench view made without due consideration of earlier binding decisions could not displace the earlier line of authority. The workman was therefore entitled to wages for the period of enforced non-employment, and the employer had to pay the remaining balance of wages already partly paid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313046