Supreme Court Dismisses Hotel Managements' Appeals in Industrial Dispute Over Suspension Wages and Interim Relief. Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Implies Power to Suspend Without Pay Pending Permission, but Industrial Tribunal Can Grant Interim Relief as Incidental to Main Dispute Under Section 10(4), Limited to Half Wages.

Industrial dispute concerning suspension and proposed dismissal of hotel workmen pending permission under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and grant of interim relief.

The workmen sought interim relief from the Industrial Tribunal pending disposal of applications for permission to dismiss; the management challenged the grant of interim relief before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and then the Supreme Court.

Disputes over conditions of labour led to a strike; managements held enquiries, found workmen guilty of misconduct, and suspended them without pay pending permission under Section 33 to dismiss; workmen applied for interim relief on grounds that suspension without pay for an indefinite period was punitive and in breach of Section 33.

Industrial Tribunal granted interim relief of full wages plus Rs. 25 per month per head in lieu of food by orders dated December 5, 1955. Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the management appeals on May 28, 1956. Supreme Court granted special leave and by order dated June 5, 1956 stayed the Tribunal's order on condition that the employers pay half the amount adjudged.

Whether any wages are payable to workmen suspended pending permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and during the pendency of applications under Section 33. Whether the Industrial Tribunal is competent to grant interim relief except by an interim award that was published.

Appellants contended that suspension of workmen pending permission under Section 33 imposes an absolute bar to payment of any wages to the suspended workmen. Appellants contended that an industrial tribunal is not competent to grant interim relief without making an interim award which should have been published. Respondents contended that suspension involving non-payment of wages is not contemplated under the ordinary law of master and servant in the absence of an express term in the contract, and since there were no standing orders providing suspension without payment, the employers could not withhold wages. Respondents contended that the Industrial Tribunal had power to grant interim relief as incidental to the main question under reference by virtue of Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 modifies the common law by implying a term in the contract of employment that the employer may suspend the employee without pay pending permission to dismiss, but the contract remains suspended and wages become payable if permission is refused. The Industrial Tribunal's power under Section 10(4) to adjudicate incidental matters empowers it to grant interim relief even if not expressly mentioned in the reference, and such interim relief need not be by way of a published award. Interim relief should ordinarily be limited to half the amount adjudged so as not to amount to the whole final relief.

It was well settled that under the ordinary law of master and servant the power to suspend the servant without pay could not be implied as a term in an ordinary contract of service between the master and the servant but must arise either from an express term in the contract itself or a statutory provision governing such contract. But S. 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. Even assuming that the Industrial Tribunal could not grant interim relief except by an interim award which required publication that could not preclude this Court from granting interim relief in the same manner as the Industrial Tribunal could and ss. 15, 17 or 17A could have no application to such an order passed by this Court. Ordinarily interim relief could not be the whole relief the workmen would get in case of final success and the appellants should not be made to pay more than half the amount adjudged by the Industrial Tribunal as interim relief in these cases.

Disputes over conditions of labour between the three hotels and their workmen led to a strike on October 5, 1955. In Imperial Hotel, enquiries were held against 22 workmen and notices of proposed dismissal subject to Section 33 permission were served. After the strike, the three managements issued notices on October 5 and 7, 1955 directing workmen to rejoin, suspending them, and informing them of decision to dismiss pending permission. Reference orders were made for Imperial Hotel on October 12, 1955 (later 19 workmen filed applications under Section 33-A), for Swiss Hotel on November 10, 1955, and for Maiden's Hotel on November 23, 1955. Applications for interim relief were filed on October 22 (Imperial) and November 26 (Maiden's and Swiss). The Industrial Tribunal granted interim relief on December 5, 1955. The Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the management appeals on May 28, 1956. Special leave was granted by the Supreme Court, and stay was ordered on June 5, 1956 on condition of paying half the amount. Workmen not re-employed were taken back on July 15, 1956. The Supreme Court delivered its final judgment on May 21, 1959.

• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 10(4), 33, 33-A, 15, 17, 17A