K. Veeraswami, C.J.
1. The question in this appeal is whether for the period of suspension between December 6, 1966, and November 20, 1967, the appellant, who was paid fifty per cent of his normal wages, was entitled to the other half, though, eventually, the disciplinary proceedings, against him ended in his dismissal. The full wages were denied and, even before the order of dismissal was made, the appellant went before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and wanted the other half of the wages to be computed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That was ordered. But the first respondent got this order quashed by Palaniswamy. J.
2. The learned Judge referred to by-law 59 of the first respondent which read:
In the matters other than the Provident Fund, like hours of work, scales of pay, leave allowances, festival and other allowances, gratuity and medical relief, the staff of the Bank shall be governed by the Railway Rules effective from time to time.
and pointed out that Rule 1706 of the Railway Rules provided for suspension and Rules 2043 provided for payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. That rule specifically stated that the subsistence allowance shall be half of the substantive pay. The learned Judge read the two Rules with the by-law mentioned and deducted the power to suspend and justified payment of only fifty per cent of the substantive pay during the period of suspension. On that view, he quashed the order.
3. It seems to us that the order of the learned Judge does not call for interference.
We are of the view that the by-law read with the Rules does support the conclusion arrived at by him. Even apart from the Rules we would be prepared to hold, that where suspension pending an enquiry was eventually followed by dismissal, the claimant could not make a virtue of the suspension and be in a better position than a fellow worker free from any blame and not subjected to any disciplinary enquiry and get full wages without putting in any work whatever. That hurts anyone's sense of justice.
4. Our attention has been invited to B.R. Patel v. State of Maharashtra : (1968)IILLJ700SC . We do not understand the decision to support the proposition that in such circumstances the employee will be entitled to get his full wages.
5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.