CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 12 RAJ CK 0064

Ganganagar Kriya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. vs The Judge, Industrial Tribunal and Another

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 14 December 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vineet Kothari, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 7575 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 351 words

Hon''ble Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari

1.

The employer has filed the present writ petition against the award dtd.17.4.2008 of Industrial Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar whereby deciding the dispute case No. 1/2006 - Narendra Kumar Sharma V/s Manager, Ganganagar Kisan Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Ltd., the Tribunal has directed that the petitioner - workman Narendra Kumar Sharma was entitled to subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension from November, 1998 to December, 2002.

2.

The petitioner is reported to have been taken back on duty on 26.11.2007 vide para 5 of the impugned award. However, on the issue of payment of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension from November, 1998 to December, 2002, the learned Tribunal has held that the workman is entitled to the same and the learned Tribunal in the impugned award has also noticed that way back on 27.9.2002, the Tribunal had already directed that the petitioner shall be so entitled to subsistence allowance which order became final as the same was not challenged by the employer at any point of time.

3.

Be that as it may, after hearing the learned counsels at some length, no cogent reason has been made out to deny the payment of subsistence allowance to the workman for the period of suspension. Mere contention on the part of the employer that since the competent authority u/s 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 had decided the claim of workman against him, the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter is not sustainable as the said question has already been dealt with by the Industrial Tribunal in the impugned order and the said issue was not only decided by the Tribunal on 27.9.2002, which order became final but also in the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has found that the workman is entitled to subsistence allowance, which view deserves to be upheld by this Court.

4.

Consequently, there is no force in the present writ petition filed by the employer and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.