As per case facts, an RBI employee was suspended and dismissed after a criminal conviction, but later acquitted by the High Court on benefit of doubt. The Bank initially refused ... reinstatement, citing lack of honourable acquittal. An Industrial Tribunal ordered his reinstatement with full back wages, treating the dismissal period as on duty. The employee then sought full pay and allowances for the initial suspension period before dismissal, which the Labour Court granted. The Bank appealed this. The question arose whether the suspension order was automatically set aside on reinstatement, if the Bank could regulate the suspension period under service rules, and if the Labour Court had jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to award full pay for the pre-dismissal suspension period. Finally, the Supreme Court held that absence due to criminal arrest is not considered beyond an employee's control. The Bank has exclusive power to decide if a suspension period is treated as duty or leave. Based on 'no work, no pay', the Bank isn't liable for full salary during suspension where no work was rendered due to the employee's involvement. The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding this entitlement under Section 33-C(2).