Sir/Madam,
I would like to know If any employee is suspended for one week is he/she entitled for salary for his/her suspension period? Please give me the proper guideline.
Thanks & Regards
SandipChakraborty
From India, Kolkata
1I would like to know If any employee is suspended for one week is he/she entitled for salary for his/her suspension period? Please give me the proper guideline.
Thanks & Regards
SandipChakraborty
From India, Kolkata
Hi, If you giving the salary to him for suspension period then what is the use of suspension. Can anybody guide as per act?
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
During the suspension period the employee is entitled for half wages as allowance . Normally suspension is opted for domestic inquiry and the motive of suspension is to prevent the employee to harm the inquiry proceeding .....
Regards,
Padamnave Parashar
Manager HR
From India, Bhopal
Regards,
Padamnave Parashar
Manager HR
From India, Bhopal
Hi Padamnave, Can you mention where is the clause in law like you stated above. Awaiting for your reply,.
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Suspension are of two types
1. Suspension pending enquiry
2. Suspension as Punishment
Standing orders provide for Subsistence allowance in case of Suspension pending enquiry.. If my memory is right, 50% of Basic plus DA need to be paid for suspension pending enquiry for the first three months and 75% for the next three months and 100% if the enquiry is prolonged beyond six months.
In case of of punishment, no pay is payable. However model standing orders restrict the number of days of suspension to 30 .So when an employee is punished with a suspension of 7 days, no pay is payable.
T Sivasankaran
From India, Chennai
1. Suspension pending enquiry
2. Suspension as Punishment
Standing orders provide for Subsistence allowance in case of Suspension pending enquiry.. If my memory is right, 50% of Basic plus DA need to be paid for suspension pending enquiry for the first three months and 75% for the next three months and 100% if the enquiry is prolonged beyond six months.
In case of of punishment, no pay is payable. However model standing orders restrict the number of days of suspension to 30 .So when an employee is punished with a suspension of 7 days, no pay is payable.
T Sivasankaran
From India, Chennai
Dear Sirs, An allowance called subsistence allowance will be paid to the employee who is suspended pending inquiry. Salary will be paid after the inquiry results
From United States, Chicago
From United States, Chicago
Dear Mr. Sandip,
1. Payment of Subsistence allowance is due to an employee who is kept under Suspension pending the result of an Enquiry. This is as per the rules depends of the period of days involved.
2. NO remuneration is entitled to an employee who has been suspended from work after conducting an Enquiry and suspension granted in the nature of Punishment.
Jagdish.K
Kochi
From India, Kochi
1. Payment of Subsistence allowance is due to an employee who is kept under Suspension pending the result of an Enquiry. This is as per the rules depends of the period of days involved.
2. NO remuneration is entitled to an employee who has been suspended from work after conducting an Enquiry and suspension granted in the nature of Punishment.
Jagdish.K
Kochi
From India, Kochi
need to know reason for suspension first it is not always true that employee make mistake sometime even employer makes with this regard i would advice to find out the reason then proper decision should be taken
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Dear Ms. Meena,
Reason for suspension is not a question an any juncture, as it is the prerogative of every Employer to suspend his/her employee prohibiting or re-leaving from work; and if that suspension is not in the nature of a punishment, the concerned employee is eligible for Subsistence Allowance as per the norms stipulated in the relevant Act/Rules. Reason for Suspension and reasonable opportunity to hearing shall be observed subsequent to Suspension.
Jagdish. K
Kochi
From India, Kochi
Reason for suspension is not a question an any juncture, as it is the prerogative of every Employer to suspend his/her employee prohibiting or re-leaving from work; and if that suspension is not in the nature of a punishment, the concerned employee is eligible for Subsistence Allowance as per the norms stipulated in the relevant Act/Rules. Reason for Suspension and reasonable opportunity to hearing shall be observed subsequent to Suspension.
Jagdish. K
Kochi
From India, Kochi
Sir,
There is a correction in your views. Let me elucidate this.
1. There are certain form of wages/emoluments of an employee which has not to be taken for calculation of Subsistence Allowance. As such the management has to consider all remuneration other than those heads ( factors which need not to be taken for calculation of Subsistence Allowance viz. Bonus, Gratuity, contribution by employer to Provident Fund etc - as per Sec. 2 of the respective Act) which are specifically excluded in the statute for calculation of Subsistence Allowance.
2. When an employer suspends an employee pending investigation or inquiry into complaints or charges of misconduct against him, the contract of service is not rescinded and the relationship of employer and employee subsists. Thus, during suspension the employee is entitled to receive subsistence allowance. In M/s. Kshetriya Sri Gandhi Ashram, Gorakhpur vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner/Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act and Another, Allahabad High Court explains subsistence allowance as a nick name for “reduced wages” or “reduced salary.” Thus, such subsistence allowance should be paid at the rate of 50% of the wages which the workman was entitled to, immediately preceding the date of such suspension, for the first 90 days of suspension and at the rate of 75%, thereafter if prolongs 6 months then at 100 % till the final decision. Labour Law Reporter, pg. no. 897, Allahabad High Court, August 2009.
3. Inorder to arrive the one day wage of a monthly paid employee, the dividing factor should be 26 days instead of 30 days in respect of a monthly paid employee as a worker gets full months' wages not by remaining on duty for all the 30 days within a month but by remaining on work and doing duty for only 26 days excluding Sundays which are paid holidays, besides other extra holidays which could also make some marginal variation which is confirmed by learned judges:-
i. “….Wages paid for the entire month should be taken as paid for all the 30 days in the month in determining the rate of wages and not as paid for the actual number of working days. This contention runs counter to the well accepted principle that wages payable to an employee for a month are wages paid for the actual number of days he has worked which are taken as 26 days in a month after excluding Sundays which are given as compulsory holidays for all establishments; the holiday on Sunday is earned by the employee by working on the remaining days of the month. The rate of wages has, therefore, to be arrived at by dividing the total amount of wages paid in a month by 26 days and not by 30 days. The argument to the contrary has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in D.W. Mills Ltd. v. M. P. Buch (1980, Labour & Industrial cases, 1052). The Supreme Court held that "the wages for 26 days are to be treated as monthly wages and not of days." (DBR Mills v. Appellate Authority. Division Bench Andhra High Court).
ii. Justice A.P. Sen, speaking for the Supreme Court referred with approval to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Mahendra Prataprai Buch 1980 II LLJ 252 I (Gujarat) wherein the Gujarat High Court observed that a worker would get full months' wages not by remaining on duty for all the 30 days within a month but remaining on work and doing duty for only 26 days and the other extra holidays might make some marginal variation in the 26 working days but all Wage Boards and wage fixing authorities or Tribunals in the country had always followed that pattern of fixation of wages by that method of 26 working days. The learned Judge also referred to the observation of the Gujarat High Court in Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills' case (supra) to the effect that ordinarily, of course, a month is understood to mean 30 days, but the manner of calculating gratuity payable under the Act to the employees who work for 26 days a month followed by the Gujarat High Court could not be called perverse, and that method was not anything unique or unknown. It may be pointed out that the explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 4 was added by Act 25 of 1984 subsequent to the said judgment of the Supreme Court. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the calculation of wages at 26 days a month under the Act is because of the explanation. The Supreme Court construed 15 days' wages to mean calculated on the basis of dividing the last drawn wages of a month by 26 and multiplying the same by 15. The mere fact that the agreement provides that the employee would be entitled to gratuity in addition to the compensation would make no difference for calculation of the 15 days wages as mentioned above. In the instant case the first respondent has followed the same method. In my view wherever compensation or wages have to be calculated for 15 days whether under the Payment of Gratuity Act or under settlement under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act or any other agreement, unless otherwise expressly provided, it would only be on the basis of daily wage.
iii. It is to be kept in mind that the I.D. Act has been enacted for the benefit of the labour and therefore, even if two views were possible, the one which is favourable or more favourable to the workman should be accepted. The amount of compensation has thus to be worked out on the basis of entitlement of the workman for fifteen days and not half month's pay. A priori it would follow that the entitlement cannot be worked out without calculating one day's wage or pay. For calculating one day's wage a month has to be notionaliy treated as comprising of 26 days and not 30 days as in a calendar month. Bennett Coleman And Co. Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court: 2003 (2) BLJR 1379, (2003) IIILLJ 981 Patna High Court.
Jagdish.K
Kochi
From India, Kochi
There is a correction in your views. Let me elucidate this.
1. There are certain form of wages/emoluments of an employee which has not to be taken for calculation of Subsistence Allowance. As such the management has to consider all remuneration other than those heads ( factors which need not to be taken for calculation of Subsistence Allowance viz. Bonus, Gratuity, contribution by employer to Provident Fund etc - as per Sec. 2 of the respective Act) which are specifically excluded in the statute for calculation of Subsistence Allowance.
2. When an employer suspends an employee pending investigation or inquiry into complaints or charges of misconduct against him, the contract of service is not rescinded and the relationship of employer and employee subsists. Thus, during suspension the employee is entitled to receive subsistence allowance. In M/s. Kshetriya Sri Gandhi Ashram, Gorakhpur vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner/Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act and Another, Allahabad High Court explains subsistence allowance as a nick name for “reduced wages” or “reduced salary.” Thus, such subsistence allowance should be paid at the rate of 50% of the wages which the workman was entitled to, immediately preceding the date of such suspension, for the first 90 days of suspension and at the rate of 75%, thereafter if prolongs 6 months then at 100 % till the final decision. Labour Law Reporter, pg. no. 897, Allahabad High Court, August 2009.
3. Inorder to arrive the one day wage of a monthly paid employee, the dividing factor should be 26 days instead of 30 days in respect of a monthly paid employee as a worker gets full months' wages not by remaining on duty for all the 30 days within a month but by remaining on work and doing duty for only 26 days excluding Sundays which are paid holidays, besides other extra holidays which could also make some marginal variation which is confirmed by learned judges:-
i. “….Wages paid for the entire month should be taken as paid for all the 30 days in the month in determining the rate of wages and not as paid for the actual number of working days. This contention runs counter to the well accepted principle that wages payable to an employee for a month are wages paid for the actual number of days he has worked which are taken as 26 days in a month after excluding Sundays which are given as compulsory holidays for all establishments; the holiday on Sunday is earned by the employee by working on the remaining days of the month. The rate of wages has, therefore, to be arrived at by dividing the total amount of wages paid in a month by 26 days and not by 30 days. The argument to the contrary has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in D.W. Mills Ltd. v. M. P. Buch (1980, Labour & Industrial cases, 1052). The Supreme Court held that "the wages for 26 days are to be treated as monthly wages and not of days." (DBR Mills v. Appellate Authority. Division Bench Andhra High Court).
ii. Justice A.P. Sen, speaking for the Supreme Court referred with approval to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Mahendra Prataprai Buch 1980 II LLJ 252 I (Gujarat) wherein the Gujarat High Court observed that a worker would get full months' wages not by remaining on duty for all the 30 days within a month but remaining on work and doing duty for only 26 days and the other extra holidays might make some marginal variation in the 26 working days but all Wage Boards and wage fixing authorities or Tribunals in the country had always followed that pattern of fixation of wages by that method of 26 working days. The learned Judge also referred to the observation of the Gujarat High Court in Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills' case (supra) to the effect that ordinarily, of course, a month is understood to mean 30 days, but the manner of calculating gratuity payable under the Act to the employees who work for 26 days a month followed by the Gujarat High Court could not be called perverse, and that method was not anything unique or unknown. It may be pointed out that the explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 4 was added by Act 25 of 1984 subsequent to the said judgment of the Supreme Court. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the calculation of wages at 26 days a month under the Act is because of the explanation. The Supreme Court construed 15 days' wages to mean calculated on the basis of dividing the last drawn wages of a month by 26 and multiplying the same by 15. The mere fact that the agreement provides that the employee would be entitled to gratuity in addition to the compensation would make no difference for calculation of the 15 days wages as mentioned above. In the instant case the first respondent has followed the same method. In my view wherever compensation or wages have to be calculated for 15 days whether under the Payment of Gratuity Act or under settlement under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act or any other agreement, unless otherwise expressly provided, it would only be on the basis of daily wage.
iii. It is to be kept in mind that the I.D. Act has been enacted for the benefit of the labour and therefore, even if two views were possible, the one which is favourable or more favourable to the workman should be accepted. The amount of compensation has thus to be worked out on the basis of entitlement of the workman for fifteen days and not half month's pay. A priori it would follow that the entitlement cannot be worked out without calculating one day's wage or pay. For calculating one day's wage a month has to be notionaliy treated as comprising of 26 days and not 30 days as in a calendar month. Bennett Coleman And Co. Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court: 2003 (2) BLJR 1379, (2003) IIILLJ 981 Patna High Court.
Jagdish.K
Kochi
From India, Kochi
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Salary-Note.doc
SALARY SHEET CALCULATION.xls