LexBENNETT COLEMAN & CO. (P) LTD. versus PUNYA PRIYA DAS GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
11
c
.D
E
G
BENNE1T COLEMAN & CO. (P) LTD.
v.
PUNYA PRIYA DAS GUPTA
April 2, 1969
181
(J.M. SHBLAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J
Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and .\ifiscellaneous Pro_ ..
visions Act, (45 of 1955), ss. 2(1),
(rr) 5 and 17-Ex..employee, 1/
,entitled to maintain application for gratuity-Wages-Car allowance and
.benefi£ of free telephone and newspapers-If allowances includible in
wages.
Evidence Act (1 of 1872), s. 115-Scope of.
In October 1963, the respondent was the special correspondent of the
appellant company and was entitled to car allowance, free telephone and
free newspapers in addition to his basic salary and dearness allo\vance . .
On October 8, he tendered his resignation which was aecepted on October
21, with effect from the latter date. On October 23, he accepted employ-
ment with another Newspaper and thereafter claimed rompensation for
leave. due to him. On November 11, the respondent received a letter from
the appellant that the appellant company's rules did not permit any such
. compensation where an employee had resigned,
that in the absence of a
proper notice by the respondent there was no termination of his employment
and that therefore his acc"eptance of other employment was in contraven-
tion of his conditions of service..
On November 21, therefore, the -respon~
dent went to the' appellant's office, received the letter dated October 21
accepting his resignation, the statement of his account and a cheque for
Rs. 2810.47 P. in full and final settlement of his claim. The statement of
account showed that no compensation for leave due to him Was paid and
further that in calculating the gratuity payable to him, the monetary value
of free telephone, free newspapers and car allowance were not included
as part of his wages.
The respondent wrote immediately, on the same
day, to the appellant setting out the circumstanoos in which he received
the cheque and
accep!Jnce of his resignation.
According to him he
wanted t<> specify th~1he full and final settlement did not include compen-
sation for one month's leave; and that the acceptance of 'his letter of resig~
nation. was withheld and given to him only afjer he accepted the cheque
for Rs, 2810.47 P. 'in full and final settlement of his claims'. On December
5, the appellant replied stating that the respondent's claim for leave com-
pensation waS not admissible under the company's rules and in view of the
final settlement the niatter may be closed .. The respondent's claim was
thereafter referred to the Labour Court. In his statement of claim, the
respondent claimed, (a) gratuity on the basis that his monthly wages in-
cluded the car allowance and Rs. 50, being the estimated value of the
benefit of a free telephone and newspapers an.cl (b) one month's wages
as compematien for the month's leave, in all Rs. 6000.34 P. He did not
deduct the amount of Rs. 2810.47 P. as he had not encashed the cheque
for that amount. · The Labour Court decreed part of the respondent's
claim,
In appeal to this Court, on the question : (I) Whether the respondent,
not being in the appellant's employment at the time he filed his claim in
the Labour Court, was not entitled to avail himself of the provisions of
t1!e Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Pro-
VlSion Act, 1955; (2) Whether the respondent, having sigll!ld the receipt in
. full settlement of his claim was estopped from making claims in respect
of his leave for o,ne month, the car allowanoe, ~nd the estimated benefit of
the free telephone and newspapers; and (3) Whether the monetary value
of the free telephone and newspapers and the car allowance would be
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1970] l s.c.R.
included as part of his wagea for calculatin& gratuity,
HELD : {I) Since the definition of 'an employee' in the lndllllrial
Dilputes Act, 1947 and the C.P. & Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement
Act (23 of 1947), were, in languaae, similar to the one used in Workin&
Journalist a (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, the
deciaion in Wuttrn India Automobile As.scciation v. /nd1Utrlal TribuMI,
(1949] F.C.R. 321 and
Central Provincu Transport Servic<S Ltd.
v.
Raghunath, (1956] S.C.R. 956, interpretin& the word 'employee' in those
two Acu, would be authorities for the view that an ex-employee would also
be a working journalisL There ii no conflict of opinion between tbeae
twoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.