Section 630 reaches workmen and allows recovery of company quarters despite pending industrial dispute challenge to dismissal.

Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was construed broadly to cover workmen as part of the wider term "employee," and no wording in the provision excludes them. Pendency of an industrial dispute, or of proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not by itself preserve a dismissed employee's right to retain company quarters; unless the dismissal is stayed or set aside, continued occupation becomes wrongful and proceedings under section 630 remain maintainable. The provision was also upheld against constitutional challenge on grounds of legislative competence, discrimination, and infringement of the right to life.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 applies to a workman of the company; (ii) whether the pendency of an industrial dispute or section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prevents action under section 630; (iii) whether section 630 is constitutionally invalid.

Issue (i): Whether section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 applies to a workman of the company.

Analysis: The expression "employee" in section 630 was construed as a wider term covering workmen as well. The reference to workmen in section 529(3)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 shows that workmen are treated as a category of employees. No part of section 630 indicates an intention to exclude workmen from its scope, and the provision is meant to provide a speedy remedy where company property is wrongfully withheld.

Conclusion: Section 630 applies to workmen, and the contention that workmen are outside its scope was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the pendency of an industrial dispute or section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prevents action under section 630.

Analysis: Mere pendency of a reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not suspend an order of dismissal unless the Labour Court grants appropriate relief. Until the dismissal is set aside or stayed, the employee ceases to have the right flowing from employment, including the right to retain company quarters allotted during service. Section 33(1) was held inapplicable because it is intended to prevent alteration of service conditions during pending proceedings, not to preserve occupation of company quarters after dismissal where no industrial dispute was pending at the time of dismissal.

Conclusion: Neither the pendency of the industrial dispute nor section 33(1) barred proceedings under section 630, and the continued occupation of the quarters was wrongful.

Issue (iii): Whether section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 is constitutionally invalid.

Analysis: The prior decision upholding the provision was followed. The challenge on the grounds of legislative competence, discrimination, and infringement of the right to life was not accepted, and no constitutional infirmity was found in the provision.

Conclusion: Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held constitutionally valid.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on all substantial grounds, and the order directing vacation of the company quarters was sustained. The decision affirms that a dismissed employee cannot retain company accommodation merely because an industrial dispute challenging dismissal is pending.

Ratio Decidendi: Pending challenge to dismissal does not by itself preserve an ex-employee's right to retain company property allotted during service; until the dismissal is stayed or set aside, retention of such property after termination is wrongful and actionable under section 630.

---