1959 (5) TMI 61 - SC - Indian Laws

Court modifies interim relief, directs payment, refrains from opinion on re-employment, urges prompt resolution.

The Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and Ors. Versus Hotel Workers Union

The Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and Ors. Versus Hotel Workers Union - TMI Issues Involved:1. Payment of wages to suspended workmen pending permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Competence of the Industrial Tribunal to grant interim relief without making an interim award.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Payment of Wages to Suspended Workmen Pending Permission Under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:The main contention by the appellants (hotels) was whether wages are payable to workmen who are suspended pending permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellants argued that suspension pending such permission imposes an absolute bar to the payment of any wages to the suspended workmen. Conversely, the respondents (workmen) contended that suspension involving non-payment of wages is not contemplated under the ordinary law of master and servant unless expressly stated in the contract of employment. Since there were no standing orders providing for suspension without pay, the respondents argued that the employers were bound to pay wages during the suspension period.The Court noted that under the ordinary law of master and servant, the power to suspend an employee is not implied and must be expressly stated in the contract or statute. However, the enactment of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act introduced a fundamental change, requiring the master to seek permission before dismissing a servant. The Court opined that Industrial Tribunals should imply a term in the contract allowing the master to suspend the contract of employment temporarily when the master has decided to dismiss the servant but must seek permission under Section 33. This implied term would mean that the master is not bound to pay wages during the suspension period, and the servant is not bound to render service.The Court referred to previous cases such as *Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup*, *The Management of Ranipur Colliery v. Bhuban Singh*, *Messrs. Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan*, and *Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen*, which supported the notion that an employer could suspend a workman without pay pending permission under Section 33, provided a proper enquiry had been conducted.The Court concluded that the ordinary law of master and servant regarding suspension should be modified in light of the fundamental change introduced by Section 33. Therefore, it is reasonable for Industrial Tribunals to imply a term in the contract allowing the employer to suspend the contract of employment temporarily, thus suspending the obligation to pay wages.2. Competence of the Industrial Tribunal to Grant Interim Relief Without Making an Interim Award:The appellants argued that the Industrial Tribunal could not grant interim relief without making an interim award and that such an award must be published as required by Sections 15, 17, and 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents countered that the tribunal could grant interim relief as a matter incidental to the main dispute referred to it under Section 10(4) of the Act.The Court noted that the definition of 'award' under Section 2(b) includes both interim and final determinations of any industrial dispute or related question. The tribunal has the power to grant interim relief as incidental to the main dispute referred to it under Section 10(4). However, the Court acknowledged that there might be a technical defect if the interim order was not published as required.The Court assumed that the interim order passed by the Tribunal on December 5, 1955, could not be enforced without being published under Section 17. Nevertheless, the Court decided to exercise its power to grant interim relief, noting that Sections 15, 17, and 17-A do not apply to the Court's order. The Court referred to its previous order on June 5, 1956, which laid down conditions for staying the operation of the Tribunal's order and found it just and fair to order the appellants to pay half the amount adjudged payable by the order dated December 5, 1955, for the period from October 1, 1955, to December 10, 1955, or July 15, 1956, when the workmen were taken back in service.Conclusion:The Court allowed the appeals in part, modifying the order dated December 5, 1955, granting interim relief. The appellants were ordered to pay half the amount adjudged payable for the specified period. The Court did not express an opinion on the respondents' argument that re-employment waived the decision to dismiss and the consequent suspension. The proceedings were at an initial stage, and the effect of re-employment on the question of waiver could not be determined at this stage. The Court urged the Industrial Tribunal to expedite the final determination of the disputes. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.Judgment:- Appeals allowed in part.