Dear Saswat, I would agree that there may be instances, where management would prolong the enquiry for months, even years, altogether, and finally end up imposing some silly punishment just to deny the workman the remaining wages after payment of subsistence allowance for the suspension period. But such cases are very few, although not unheard of. Such action has to have the backing of the applicable Standing Orders (SO) provision. There are certain SO which provide that even if the simplest of all punishments, without any consequence, the censure, is imposed the worker will not be entitled to any further payment. But there are other SO where provision exist that unless any major penalty is imposed the workman would be entitled to remaining wages.
From the limited facts, it appeared that the applicable provision did not entitle the workman to remaining wages. The union, having already extracted a light punishment of 4 days suspension for such a serious misconduct, which otherwise could have resulted in termination of service, now wants the remaining wages too. This would be putting a premium on such misconduct and the erring worker is getting rewarded, thanks to his union actvism. But it will have disastrous consequence to the organisation, to the morale of the assaulted supervisor and to the rest of workforce, the message will not be something they feel happy about. Already the workman has been let off lightly, that is what I feel. So please decide on the basis of the applicable SO provision.
KK