Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. C.M. is allowed and the writ petition is restored back to its original number. CWP No. 14258 of 1993 1. The order under challenge is the order passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar dismissing an application moved by the workman under Section 33-C (2) for computation of wages during the period of suspension and reversed order of removal, cumulatively from 27.3.1980 to 10 4.1984, departmental enquiry was constituted against him for his alleged misconduct. He had been placed for suspension on 27.3.1980 to 5.1.1981. The enquiry led to finding of guilt and he had been removed from service on 6.1.1981. On an appeal filed before the Commissioner, Jalandhar, the order of removal of service was set aside and it was directed that the Corporation shall proceed to inflict any minor punishment. A minor punishment had been inflicted on 21.8.1984, with stoppage of four increments without cumulative effect. While passing that order the Commissioner Municipal Corporation had not simultaneously passed any order however, as regards back wages during the time when he was not employed after the termination of service from 6.1.1981 till 10.4.1984 when the order of removal of service had been set aside. There had been also no order of how the period of suspension from 27.3.1980 to 5.1.1981 shall be treated. 2. A show cause notice was issued on 10.5.1985, subsequently, as to why the wages shall not be denied to him during the period of suspension and when he had been removed from service and before he was reinstated. The objections had also been given by the workman and ultimately an order was purported to have been passed which finds reflected in the order of the Labour Court. The reference to the said communication which had been culled out from the order of the Labour Court is as under :- As regards the emoluments claimed above are concerned, it was stated by the authorized representative of the Management that vide show cause notice No. 588/ECC/ANT dt. The reference to the said communication which had been culled out from the order of the Labour Court is as under :- As regards the emoluments claimed above are concerned, it was stated by the authorized representative of the Management that vide show cause notice No. 588/ECC/ANT dt. 10.5.1985, the workman was asked to reply why his period of suspension w.e.f 27.3.1980 to 5.1.1981 and period of absence due to removal from service w.e.f. 6.1.1981 to 14.6.1984 be not treated as period not spent on duty and as to why he be not paid anything to him for his suspension period and nothing to be paid for his absence period from 6.1.1981 to 14.6.1984 and the applicant had filed reply to the above said show cause notice and after considering the reply the Commissioner Municipal Corporation passed order dated 3.2.86 which is reproduced for ready reference :- Sh. Sucha Singh Conductor No. T-91 Nigam Transport Municipal Corporation, Amritsar may not be given anything more what he has already drawn under Rule 7.3 (b) and 7.3 (2 & 4) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970 Volume-I, Part-I." 3. The contention in defence by the Management for denial of the workmans claim that in terms of Punjab Civil Service Rules 1970 under Rule 7.3 (b), 7.3 (2) and (4) the workman was not entitled to be given any thing more than how he had been dealt with when the punishment was denied from one of removal from service to stoppage of increments. Rule 7.3 deals with the situation of when a Government employee who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired and when he is reinstated as a result of appeal, revision or review. The rule states the authority who is competent shall make a specific order regarding pay and allowances to be paid to the Government employee for a period of his absence from duty during the period of suspension preceding his dismissal removal or compulsory retirement as the case may be and whether or not shall be treated as a period spent on duty. Admittedly the authority who had directed reinstatement had not made any specific order when reference to how the period of suspension shall be treated and whether the workman was entitled to wages during the period he had not been employed when he was terminated from service but was later reversed. Admittedly the authority who had directed reinstatement had not made any specific order when reference to how the period of suspension shall be treated and whether the workman was entitled to wages during the period he had not been employed when he was terminated from service but was later reversed. The contention of the workman is that in the absence of specific order by the competent authority, it should only be taken that he was not denied salary for the period of suspension and the period when he had been disengaged by order of termination was however, later reversed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, however would state that in the absence of specific direction it shall not be permissible for the workman to claim any benefit in view of the fact that he had not been exonerated from the charges of misconduct had been proved but only the punishment was modified from one of dismissal to reinstatement and stoppage of increments. Although, the competent authority, when it directed reinstatement did not give any direction as to how suspension period was to be treated, a notice had been subsequently given and a decision had been taken by order dated 3.2.1986 not to grant any allowance during the period of disengagement of services when there was no reference about the entitlement or otherwise to back wages. It is conceded by both the parties that Punjab Civil Service Rules are applicable to the service of persons in the Municipal Corporation as well. The relevant rules relating to allowance on reinstatement as prescribed under Chapter 7 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules are set out in :- Rule 7.3 (1) When a Government employee, who has been dismissed, removed or compulsory retired, is reinstated as a result of appeal, revision or review, or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension or not, the authority competent to order re-instatement shall consider and make a specific order (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government employee for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension, preceding his dismissal removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Where the authority competent to order re-instatement is of opinion that the Government employee, who had been dismissed removed or compulsorily retired, has been fully exonerated; the Government employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), be paid his fun pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended, prior to such dismissal removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be :- Provided that where such authority is of opinion that the termination at the proceedings instituted against the Government employee had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government employee it may, after giving him an opportunity to make representation and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the Government employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7) be paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole) of pay and allowances, as it may determine. (3) In a case falling under sub-rule (2), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding dismissal removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (4) In cases other than those covered by sub-rule (2) including cases where the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service is set aside by the authority exercising Powers or appeal revision or revrew solely on the ground of non compliance with the requirements of clause (2) of article 311 of the Constitution and no further inquiry is proposed to be held, the Government employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rules (6) 811d (7), be paid such amount (not being the whole) of pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government employee of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any submitted by him in that connection with such period as may be specified in the notice. Provided that any payment under this sub-rule to a Government employee other than a Government employee who is governed by the provisions of the payment of Wages Act, 1936, (Act 4 of 1936) shall be restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding the date on which order for re-instatement of such Government employee are passed by the authority exercising the powers of appeal, revision or review, or immediately preceding the date of retirement on superannuation of such Government employee, as the case may be. (5) In a case falling under Sub-rule (4), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose : Provided that if the Government employee so desires such authority may direct that the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government employee. Note :- The order of the competent authority under the preceding proviso shall be absolute and no sanction of the higher authority shall be necessary for the grant of (a) - extraordinary leave excess of three months in the case temporary Government employee : and (b) leave of any kind due in excess of five years in the case of a permanent and quassi permanent Government employee. 5. Rule 7.3 (1) states that the authority that directs reinstatement shall, at the time of passing an order, consider and make a specific order regarding pay and allowances to be paid for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal. Admittedly the order of reinstatement made no reference to allowances and pay during the period of suspension and when he had been originally ordered to be removed from service and ultimately reinstated by virtue of that order. 6. Rule 7.3 (2) refers to an instance when the Government employee who had been dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired was fully exonerated. 6. Rule 7.3 (2) refers to an instance when the Government employee who had been dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired was fully exonerated. The said sub-clause cannot therefore operate for a case where admittedly the workman had been found guilty of misconduct but only the punishment was found to be harsh and grossly disproportionate. Clause (4) which is reproduced above covers every type of situation which is not covered by sub-clause (2) means that in a case where reinstatement is ordered the competent authority may determine after giving notice to the government employee of the quantum proposed and after considering representation submitted by him would pass an order. Such a notice had been given which is what is again reproduced above when a show cause notice was given on 1985 Sub-Rule 5 states that in a case falling under sub-rule (4), the period of absence from duty include the period of suspension shall not be treated as period spent on duty include the period of suspension shall not be treated as period spent on duty unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated. Reading sub-rules 4 and 5, it is clear that there are three options. The authority may specifically order that the period of suspension and when he was disengaged shall not be treated as period of suspension and when he was disengaged shall not be treated as period of suspension of duty. At the same time it should state how the period shall be counted (i) as to what quantum of allowances could be given or (ii) whether it could be converted into leave of any kind of duty admissible to the government employee, (iii) The option is to treat that period or disengagement as period spent on duty for any specific purpose given by the authority in which case, the workman shall have all the wages. In an event, there is no period when he was disengaged when there was originally an order of termination and later reinstated. Such an order ought to be explicit but the order passed by the Commissioner merely refers to the fact that the workman is not entitled to anything more than provided in sub-rule 4. 7. In an event, there is no period when he was disengaged when there was originally an order of termination and later reinstated. Such an order ought to be explicit but the order passed by the Commissioner merely refers to the fact that the workman is not entitled to anything more than provided in sub-rule 4. 7. Although the workman had not challenged the order passed by the Commissioner on 3.2.1986 and he approached the Labour Court in Rule 33-C (2), I still do not think that the Labour Court could have dismissed the application only on the ground. After all, the order of the Commissioner did not reject the plea, it had stated that the workman was not entitled to anything more than what stated in sub-rule (4). Sub-rule (4) requires a determination by the competent authority what the sub-clause (5) states viz. the manner of treatment of the period of suspension and removal. Sub-rules (4) and (5) do not contemplate a complete denial of right to the workman. 8. The order of the Labour Court is set aside and a direction is given to the third respondent to pass appropriate order in the light of the observation made above on the quantum of allowances admissible to the workman during the period of suspension and removal. The decision by the third respondent shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 9. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Petition allowed.