THE MANAGEMENT OF HOTEL IMPERIAL, NEW DELHI & OTHERS versus HOTEL WORKERS UNION

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 476 · Decided: 21-05-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I959 
Kamarhatty 
Co., Ltd. 
•• 
U shnath Pakrashi 
Wanehoo ]. 
I959 
Mayaz 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
Learned counsel for the appellant wanted to argue 
that this was not a case of discharge or dismissal but 
of lay-off. We did not permit him to raise this argu-
ment because the special leave was limited only to the 
question set out above. The answer to that question 
has already been indicated above and on that answer 
the appeal must fail. 
We therefore 
dismiss the 
appeal, but in the circumstances we make no order as 
to costs of this Court. 
Appeal dismissed. 
THE MANAGEMENT OF HOTEL IMPERIAL, 
NEW DELHI & OTHERS 
v. 
HOTEL WORKERS' UNION 
(B. P. SINHA, P. B. GA.JENDRA.GADKA.B and 
K. N. w A.NOHOO, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Employer seeking permission to dismiss 
workmen as result of enquiry-Suspension of workmen pending 
decision of such application by Tribunal-Validity-Workmen, if 
entitled to wages during period of suspension-Grant of interim 
relief-Power of Supreme Court-Industrial Disputes Act, r947 (I'f' 
of r947), ss. I0(4), 33. 
The appellants. who were the managements of the three 
hotels, decided to dismiss some of their workmen who were found 
guilty of misconduct as a result of enquiries held by them and 
suspended them without pay pending the receipt of the permis-
sion of the Industrial Tribunal under s. 33 of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen applied to the Industrial 
Tribunal for the grant of interim relief pending disposal of the 
applications and the Tribunal granted the relief prayed for 
amounting to full wages and .a sum of Rs. 25 per head per month 
in lieu of food. 
The managements appealed against such grant, 
but the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals. The 
appellants came up to this court by special leave. The two 
questions for decision in the appeals were, (r) whether any wages 
were at all payable to the suspended workmen pending permission 
being sought under s. 33 to dismiss them and the decision of the 
applications under s. 33 of the Act, and, (2) whether the Industrial 
Tribunal was competent to grant interim relief except by an 
interim award that was published. 
H e!d, that it was well settled that under the ordinary law of 
master and servant the power to suspend the servant without 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
477 
pay could not be implied as a term in an ordinary contract of 
z959 
service between the master and the servant but must arise either 
from an express term in the contract itself or a statutory provi- The Management of 
sion governing such contract. 
Hotel Imperial 
Hanley v. Pease & Partners, Limited, 1915 (1) K.B. 698; 
v. 
Wallwork v. Fielding and Ors., 1922 (2) K.B. 66; Secretary of State 
Hotel Workers' 
for Itidia in Council v. Surendra Nath Goswami, I.L.R. 1939 (1) Cal. 
Union 
46 and Rura Ram v. Divisional Superintendent, N. W.R .. I.L.R. 
VII (1954) Punj. 415, referred to. 
Buts. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which took 
away the right of the employer to dismiss the employee except 
with the permission of the Industrial Tribunal, introduced a 
fundamental change in industrial law in modification of the 
common law by empowering the employer by implication to 
suspend the contract of employment and thus relieve himself of 
the obligation to pay the wages and the employee of rendering 
service, where, as a result of a proper enquiry, he came to the 
conclusion that an employee should be dismissed. In the peculiar 
circumstances created by the enactment of s. 33 of the Act it was 
just and fair that Industrial Tribunals, which had the power to 
go beyond the ordinary law of master and servant, s110uld imply 
such a term in the contract of employment. The result, there-
fore, would be that if the Tribunal granted the permission, the 
suspended contract would come to an end and there would be no 
further obligation on the part of the employer to pay any wages 
after the date of suspension. If on the other hand, the permis-
sion was refused, the workmen would be entitled to all their 
wages from the date of suspension. 
Western India Automobile Association v. The Industrial 
Tribunal, Bombay, [1949] F.C.R. 321 and Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. 
Brijnandan Pandey, [1956] S.C.R. Boo, referr~d to. 
Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup, [1956] 
S.C.R. 916; The Management of Ranipur Colliery v. Dhuban Singh, 
C.A. 768/57, decided on 20+59, M/s. Sasa Musa Sugar Works 
(P) Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan, C. As. 746 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.