TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1969 (4) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was transferred to the company's branch office at Delhi where he worked as a special correspondent. By 1963 the remuneration payable to him came to Rs. 700 as basic pay, Rs. 497 as dearness allowance, Rs. 200 per month as car allowance in addition to a free telephone and free newspapers. On October 8, 1963, while he was on leave, the respondent tendered his resignation. On October 14, 1963 P. K. Roy, the company's General Manager, informed the respondent that his letter of October 8, 1963 could not be considered as one of resignation as under the company's rules he would have first to report on duty and then to give a notice. On October 21, 1963, however, the company accepted the resignation with effect from that date and thereupon the respondent joined the Indian Express on October 23, 1963. Meanwhile, one V. G. Karnik, on behalf of the company, informed the respondent by his letter dated November 19, 1963 that in the absence of a proper notice by him there could be no termination of employment and that "your reported acceptance of another employment in the circumstances is in contravention of the terms and conditions of service of this company". The respondent had, in the meantim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to him was paid and further that in calculating the gratuity payable to him the monetary value of free telephone and free newspapers and the car allowance were not included as part of his wages. In reply to the respondent's letter of November 21, 1963, the said Roy, by his letter of December 5, 1963, wrote that as the respondent had not taken away the company's letter of acceptance of resignation by the time Karnik addressed the said letter, Kamik was "right on facts" but, in view of the settlement of his affairs and the subsequent settlement of accounts, "it was better to forget the past and part amicably". He also made it clear that the respondent's claim for leave compensation was not admissible under the coinpany's rules. The respondent thereafter applied to the Delhi Administration and the latter, as aforesaid, referred his claim to the Labour Court for adjudication. In his statement of claim before the Labour Court, the respondent claimed that the monthly wages payable to him were Rs. 700 basic, Rs. 497 as dearness allowance, Rs. 200 conveyance allowance and Rs. 50 being the estimated value of the benefit of a free telephone and newspapers, aggregating Rs. 1,447 per month....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the company's plea that the receipt given by the respondent in full settlement of all his claims estopped him from making these claims on the ground that as these items were claimable under the Act there could be no estoppel against law. In the result, the Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to claim car allowance at Rs. 200 per month, Rs. 50 per month for telephone and newspapers and compensation for 13 days leave, that the first two were parts of his wages, that his monthly remuneration was, therefore, Rs. 1,447 and gratuity equivalent to 51 months wages would have to be calculated on the basis of Rs. 1,447 being his wages per month and directed the company to pay on the aforesaid calculations Rs. 2,002 over and above Rs. 2,810.47 P. for which the company had issued the said cheque. The first contention raised by counsel for the company against the award was that the respondent, not being in the company's employment at the time he filed his claim in the Labour Court, was not a working journalist, and therefore, was not entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the Act. Section 2(c) provides that "unless the context otherwise requires" a newspaper employ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....similar question was canvassed in Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. vs. Raghunath(11956] S.C.R. 956.) in connection with the C.P. & Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, XXIII of 1947. Section 2 (1 0) of that Act defined an 'employee' in terms identical with those in the Industrial Disputes Act as it stood before the amendment in 1956, i.e., as meaning "any person employed by an employer to do any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work for contract or hire or reward in any industry and includes an employee discharged on account of any dispute relating to a change-whether before or after the discharge". Section 2(12) defined an 'industrial dispute to mean "any dispute or difference connected with an industrial matter arising between employer and employee or between employers or employees". It was not disputed that the question of reinstatement was an industrial dispute but the controversy was as to whether it was an industrial dispute as defined by s. 2 (12) of that Act. The argument was that as the workman concerned was already dismissed and his employment had thereby come to an end, he could not be termed an employee as the intention of the legislature could not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to two agarias in partnership. After the manufacture of salt these agarias were paid at the rate of -1516 per maund. Accounts would be settled at the end of each season and the agarias would be paid the balance due to them. These agarias worked together with the members of their families and were also free to engage extra labour on their own account, the appellant company having no concern therewith. No hours of work were prescribed, no muster rolls were maintained nor were working hours controlled by the appellant company. There were also no rules as regards leave or holidays and the agarias were free to go out of the factory after making arrangements for the manufacture of salt. On these facts the question was whether the agarias were workmen as defined by s. 2(s) or independent contractors. Bhagwati, J. speaking for the Court, after quoting s. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as it stood prior to its amendment, in 1956, said thus : "The essential condition of a person being a workman within the terms of this definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry, that there should be, in other words, an employment of his by the employer and that there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bannerjee, was not in the words of s. 2(s) a person employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual ,or clerical work, that he was not a workman within the meaning of S. 2(s), that the question of his dismissal was not an industrial dispute, and that therefore, his case was beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The workman thereupon applied for special leave under Art. 136 and though leave was granted, it was limited to the question whether a dispute in relation to a person who is not a workman was an industrial dispute as defined by s. 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the special leave being so limited, the Court proceeded on the assumption that Dr. Bannerjee was not "a workman" under the definition of that word as it then stood. The problem was, whether even so, the dispute regarding his dismissal could still be an industrial dispute, the contention of the workmen being that it would be so as by the use of the expression 'of any person' in the third part of s. 2(k) a dispute relating to a person, though not a workman, would 'be an industrial dispute. In answering this problem the Court entered into an elaborate discussion of the several provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e workmen would have a direct and substantial interest in questions relating to all kinds of employees. At page 1173 S. K. Das J. observed "The expression 'any person' in the definition clause means, in our opinion, a person in whose employment, or non-employment, or terms of employment, or conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a direct or substantial interest-with whom they have, under the scheme of the Act, a community of interest." While dealing with the decisions in Western India Automobile Association([1949] F.C.R. 321.) and Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd.( [1956] S.C.R.), the learned Judge clearly stated at page 1176 that the problem in those cases was whether an industrial dispute included within its ambit a dispute with regard to reinstatement of certain dismissed workmen, a problem quite different from the one before them and that the illustrations given by Mahajan J. (as he then was) in the Western India Automobile Association(1), "to elucidate a different problem", could not be taken as determinative of a problem which was not before the Court in that case. The problem in each of these decisions being different and in view particularly of the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons, therefore, clearly indicate that it is not only a newspaper employee presently employed in a particular newspaper establishment who can maintain an application for gratuity. The scheme of all these acts dealing with industrial questions is to permit an ex-employee to avail of the benefits of their provisions, the only requirement being that the claim in dispute must be one which has arisen or accrued whilst the claimant was in the employment of the person against whom it is made. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the definitions of a "newspaper em- made therein. The reason for not doing so seems to be that the respondent had made the claim before one Mitra, the accountant in the Delhi office, and that claim was a matter of dispute. This position emerges from Roy's reply dated December 5, 1963 to the respondents said letter of November 21, 1963 wherein the stand taken by Roy was that the respondent was, not entitled to compensation for leave, not because he had given up that claim when he had signed the said receipt, but because the company's rules did not permit such compensation, It is, therefore, manifest that the respondent did not make any representation when he signe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....effect that there was no termination of the respondent's service in the absence of a month's notice, and on receipt of which, according to the respondent, he considered it necessary to secure the letter of acceptance of his resignation from the company. If the termination of his service depended on the giving of a month's notice, how was it that the company's Manager, D'Souza, had accepted the resignation and signed the letter of acceptance Ex. W/1 on October 21, 1963; (3) the company was aware, as Karnik's said letter shows, that on the basis that his resignation was accepted with effect from October 21, 1963 the respondent had joined the Indian Express on October 23, 1963. The respondent's case was that it was after he was told that his resignation had been accepted that he joined the Indian Express. But when he received Karnik's said letter he decided that he could not rest content without jeopardizing his interests on the mere oral intimation of acceptance of his resignation, and therefore, went to the company's office to secure a written acceptance when he was told that unless he passed a receipt in full settlement of his claims, the letter of acceptance would not be issued to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....included as part of his wages for calculating gratuity. The value in terms of money of the benefit of free telephone and free newspapers, as estimated by the respondent, was not in question. But the argument was that this benefit as also the car allowance were given to the respondent by way of reimbursement for expenses which as a special correspondent he would otherwise have had to incur for the proper and efficient discharge of his duties. The two items, therefore, were neither an allowance nor an amenity. The facts, however, are that the telephone was installed by the company at the respondent's residence and stood in his and not in the company's name. All payments connected with it, including charges for calls, were made by the company. There was no restriction that he could use the telephone only for his official work or that he could not use it for personal calls. He was not called upon to keep an account of personal calls, the payment of which he would be called upon to make. Nor was any estimated amount for such personal calls either demanded or deducted from his wages. The newspapers were subscribed by the respondent but the bills for them were paid by the company. It was ....