AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 2806 ::2000 AIR SCW 3047 ::2000 LAB. I. C. 3111 ::2000 ALL. L. J. 2444 ::2001 (1) UJ (SC) 247 ::2000 (3) CurLR 309 ::(2000) 87 FacLR 1 ::2000 (7) SCC 90 ::(2000) 2 LabLJ 1513 ::(2000) 6 Scale 78 ::(2000) 4 All WC 2982 ::(2001) 1 BLJ 238 ::(2000) 97 FJR 304 ::(2000) 4 ESC 2431 ::(2001) 1 Lab LN 51 ::(2000) 4 Pat LJR 37 ::(2000) 4 SCT 390 ::(2000) 5 ServLR 164 ::(2000) 3 UPLBEC 2268 ::2000 (5) Supreme 650 ::(2000) 9 JT 457 (SC) ::2000 (9) JT 457 ::2000 (8) SRJ 144

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Allahabad)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. P. Bharucha, Y. K. Sabharwal , JJ

Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) , Sch.II Item.6— Constitution of India , Art.16— Subsistence allowance - Suspended employee is entitled to payment of same as of right - Employee in financial distress due to non-payment of subsistence allowance unable to reach place of enquiry and participate in departmental enquiry - Amounts to denial of opportunity to defend in enquiry - Order of removal quashed. W.P. 3384 of 1984, D/- 23-12-1997 (All), Reversed. The payment of subsistence allowance, in accordance with the Rules, to an employee under suspension is not a bounty. It is a right. An employee is entitled to be paid the subsistence allowance. Non-payment of subsistence allowance on grounds that the applicant had not furnished the address where the amount was to be sent and had also not given the requisite certificate indicating that he was not employed else during the period of suspension, is not justified. At no stage, the employee was told that he had to furnish such a certificate, and that he could not be paid subsistence allowance without it. Because of the financial crunch on account of non-payment of subsistence allownce, the employee was unable to appear in enquiry. It is a clear case of breach of principles of natural justice on account of the denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to defend himself in the departmental enquir....