M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE Petitioner-Bharat Earth Movers limited ('the BEML' for short) has presented this Writ Petition praying for quashinp the order of the industrial tribunal, Bangalore, dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under S. 23. 3 (2) (b) of the Industrial dispute Act ('the Act') for short ). ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief, are as follows:- The first respondent was an employee of the BEML. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him on certain charges on 16-5-1979 and with effect from the same date he was placed under suspension. At the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the firs' respondent having been found guilty of the charge framed against him, the petitioner made an order imposing the penalty of dismissal from service against the first respondent. But as certain industrial disputes were pending between the workmen of the petitioner and the petitioner, an application was filed under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, seeking approval of the Tribunal. ( 3 ) ALONG with the dismissal order the petitioner had also tendered an amount of Rs. 693 being one month wages in terms of the proviso to S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act. ( 4 ) THE first respondent raised an objection to the effect that the amount to be paid was short of one month's wages as periodical increments due to the petitioner during the period of suspension had not been added and therefore the condition precedent, namely, payment of one month's wages, had not been complied with and therefore the application had to be dismissed. The Tribunal accepted the contention and dismissed the application. ( 5 ) THE relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal reads:"if he was dismissed as from 25-9-1980 the question is as to what he could have earned if he was in service in the months of August or september 1980. If the workman is kept under suspension it does not mean that he is not entitled to an increment for the suspension period over the wages ordinarily payable. If there is any provision in the standing orders that during the suspensoin he should be paid any subsistence allowance that would only be the actual payment that would have been paid to him. If there is any provision in the standing orders that during the suspensoin he should be paid any subsistence allowance that would only be the actual payment that would have been paid to him. While considering as to what is this wages in the normal course we have to ignore the fact of suspension and fix it at what he would have been entitled if he was not kept under suspension his increment is postponed to 1-6-1979 he would have normally earned an increment on that day and for the months of June, July, August or september 1980 he would have got his basic pay with an increment. Mere suspension of subsequent dismissal cannot be a ground to deny the increment due to him. It is not clearly stated as to what exactly the increment that is due to the Opponent. However, when it is admitted that it is payable to him as from 1-6-1979 it can be taken that his total emolument as from 1-6-1979 was more than Rs. 693 paid to him and consequently the payment made was less than the wages for one month due to him as at the time of dismissal. As payment of wages for one month is a condition precedent to grant approval of the action taken the approval sought tor cannot be granted in the present case and hence the application is dismissed with cost of Rs. 100 payable to the opponent. " ( 6 ) THE legality of the aforesaid order is challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, ( 7 ) SRI. Ramadas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the standing order 23 was clear and specific, namely, that in the event of imposition of penalty of dismissal from service to the period of suspension proceeding the order of dismissal had to be treated as period of absence and therefore there was no ques'ion of the suspended employee earning increments during the said period. ( 8 ) SHRI. B. V. Puttegowda learned counsel for the first respondent strenuously contended that even during the period of suspension the contract of service continue and the workman suspended is entitled to earn increments. ( 8 ) SHRI. B. V. Puttegowda learned counsel for the first respondent strenuously contended that even during the period of suspension the contract of service continue and the workman suspended is entitled to earn increments. In support of the submission that the earnings of increments was automatic after the incremental period is completed, reliance had been placed on certain circulars which had been filed before the Tribunal, which were also produced at the time of hearing. It is not disputed that earning of increments is automatic when a workman is continuing in service and he is attending to his duties. But the question it whether a. workman suspended, during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings instituted against him earns increments and the same should be added to the wages and one month's wages computed on the said basis should be tendered while communicating the order of dismissal. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the first respondent submitted that just as earning of increments was automatic when a workman was on duty it was also automatic even during the period of suspension as during the said period the contract of service continues to exist. He said that his submission was fully covered by the Judgment of the supreme Court in the case of B. R. Patel v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1968 SC. 800 ) which was followed in mrithunjai Singh v. State. ( 10 ) IN my opinion, the standing order in question on which the learned counsel for the petitioner relies is acomplete answer to the contentions urged for the first respondent The relevant portion of the standing order reads :-"23. 3 Suspension: - (a) where a disciplinary proceedings against a workman is contemplated or is pend- ing or where criminal proceedings against him in respect of any offence are under investigation or trial and the employer is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place the workman under suspension, he may, by order in writing suspend him with effect from sach date as may be specified in the order. A statement setting out in detail the reasons for such suspension shall be supplied to the workman within a week from the date of suspension. A statement setting out in detail the reasons for such suspension shall be supplied to the workman within a week from the date of suspension. (B) A workman who is placed under suspension under clause (a) shall, during the period of such suspension, be paid a subsistence at the following rates, namely:- (i) Where the enquiry contemplated or pending is departmental, the subsistence shall, for the first 90 days from the date of suspension be equal to one half of the basic wages, dearness allowance and other compensatory allowances to which the workman would have been entitled if were on leave with wages. If the departmental enquiry gets prolonged and the workman continues to be under suspension for a period exceeding 90 days, the subsistence allowance shall for such period bz equal to three fourths of such basic' wages, dearness allowance and other compensatory allowances; provided that where such enquiry is prolonged beyond a period of 90 days for reasons directly attributed to the workman, the subsistence allowance shall, for the exceeding 90 days, be reduced to one-fourth of such basic wages, dearness allowance and other compensatory allowances. (C) If on the conclusion of the enquiry or, as the case may be, of the criminal proceedings, the workman has been found guilay of the charges framed against him and it is considered and after giving the workman concerned a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed, that an order of dismissal or suspension or fine or stoppage of annual increment or reduction in rank would meet the ends of justice, the employer shall pass an order accordingly. Provided that when an order of dismissal is passed under this clause, the workman shall be deemed to have been absent from duty during the period of smjerrion and shallnot be entitled to any remuneration for such period, and the subsistence allowance already paid to him' shall not be recovered. " (Underlined italic by me) while standing O. 23 (3) (b) provides for payment of subsistence allowance as also the rate of subsistence allowance payable to a workman kept under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings, the Proviso lays down as to how the period of suspension should be treated when the disciplinary proceedings ends in an order of dismissal. The working is clear and unambiguous. The working is clear and unambiguous. In the event of therebeing an order of dismissal, the period of suspension has to be treated as absence from duty, and that the workman concerned is. not entitled to any' remuneration for the said period. When according to the said proviso the period is treated as absence and the workman is not entitled to any remuneration, the contention that even during the said period the concerned suspended workman earns increment, is patently untenable. ( 11 ) THE Judgment on which the learned counsel for the first respondent relies does not support the contention urged by him. Under law of Master and Servant, it is well known that there are three kinds of suspensions: (I) A servant may be suspended as a measure of punishment when it is one of the penalty impossible under the service Rules or contract. (ii) A servant may be suspended during the pendency of disciplinary inquiry or investigation or trial in respect of an offence alleged against him on payment of subsistence allowance when such a provision is incorporated in the service Rules or contract of Service. (iii) A servant may be suspended in exercise of inherent power of master; in that a servant may he forbidden from discharging his duties during the pendency of inquiry even when there is no provision for placing him, under suspension either under the contract of service or under the service rules but subject to payment of full salary and allowance. The Supreme Court has enunciated these aspects in the following cases: (i) Management of Hotel Imperial v Hotel Workers' Union (AIR 1958 SC 1342 ). (ii) T. Cajee v. U. Jormanik Stem (1961) 1, SCR. 750. (iii) Balwantory Ratilal Patel ( AIR 1968 SC 800 ) (iv) V. P. Gindroniya v. State of madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1970 SC. 1494 ) in the case of B. R. Patel on which the learned Counsel for respondent, respondent No. 1 relied, the suspension was found to be invalid and not authorised by law. Therefore, it was held that even during the period of suspension the petitioner therein was entitled to full salary and allowances including increments. The same was the position in the case of Mritunjai Singh both these cases come under the third category. Therefore, it was held that even during the period of suspension the petitioner therein was entitled to full salary and allowances including increments. The same was the position in the case of Mritunjai Singh both these cases come under the third category. The present case falls under the Second category as there is specific provision in the standing order of the beml conferring power to place an employee under suspension and also as to the quantum of subsistence allowance payable during suspension and how the period of suspension should be treated in the event of decision to dismiss the suspended employee. According to proviso to R. 23. 3 (c) of the standing Order, if the disciplinary proceedings culminate in the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service, the period of suspension has to be treated as absence from duty and the concerned suspended workman is not entitled to any remuneration, which certainly, includes increments, for the said period. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent No. 1. however, submitted that according to the standing O. 23 (3) (b), in calculating the subsistence allowance the period of suspension must be treated as if it was leave with wages and it follows that the incremerits falling due during the period of suspension has to be taken into account while granting the subsistence allo wance and that means that one month's salary payable along with the dismissal order must include the increments so taken into account while computing the amount of subsistence allowance payable to the workman. The question as to whether the subsistence allowance should be calculated On the basis that the suspended workman earns increment even during the period of suspension, does not directly arise for consideration in this case. In fact, the learned counsel for the first respondent admitted that no increment was taken into account while calculating the subsistence allowance. If standing order 23 3 (b) (i) requires that the period of suspension must be deemed to be leave with allowance for computing the subsistence allowance, the proviso to 23. In fact, the learned counsel for the first respondent admitted that no increment was taken into account while calculating the subsistence allowance. If standing order 23 3 (b) (i) requires that the period of suspension must be deemed to be leave with allowance for computing the subsistence allowance, the proviso to 23. 3 (c) provides that in the the event of dismissal of the concerned workman the period of suspension be treated as absence from duty and further adds that the workman concerned would not be entitled to any remuneration for the said period, and, it is the latter provision which is applicable when the disciplinary proceednigs culminate in the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service. Therefore, I hold that the suspended workman cannot be regarded as having earned any increment in the event of his dismissal from service. For the reasons aforesaid, I make the following order: (i) the Rule made absolute; (ii) The impugned order of the labour Court dated 31-8-1981 (Annexure-A) is quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Labour Court with a driection to dispose of the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. (iv) No costs. --- *** --- .