He claimed gratuity companyputable on the basis of Rs.
Meanwhile, one V. G. Karnik, on behalf of the companypany, informed the respondent by his letter dated November 19, 1963 that in the absence of a proper numberice by him there companyld be numbertermination of employment and that your reported acceptance of another employment in the circum stances is in companytravention of the terms and companyditions of service of this companypany.
The respondent thereafter applied to the Delhi Administration and the latter, as aforesaid, referred his claim to the Labour Court for adjudication.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated February 28, 1966 of the Labour Court, Delhi in W.J. No.
In his statement of claim before the Labour Court, the respondent claimed that the monthly wages payable to him were Rs.
1,447 as companypensation for the months leave, in all, Rs.
6,000.34 P. He did number deduct from the said claim the said amount of Rs.
1,397, companyprised of Rs.
50 per month for telephone and news papers and companypensation for 13 days leave, that the first two were parts of his wages, that his monthly remuneration was, therefore, Rs.
200 companyveyance allowance and Rs.
W/4 that 1 after he had tendered his resignation there was a discussion between them when the matter of acceptance of his resigna tion was amicably settled and that it was thereafter that he joined the Indian Express, 2 the letter of Karnik that there was numbertermination of his employment was number companyrect, 3 after October 21, 1963 he had gone to the companypanys office to settle his accounts and companylect the dues payable to him asalso the letter of acceptance of his resignation but he was told that the accounts were number yet ready and he was number then paid even his salary and dearness allowance due upto October 20, 1965 although I bad asked for these amounts at least, 4 the letter accepting his resignation was held back until he was prepared to sign a document purporting to waive all my rights to leave salary which he had first refused to sign, 5 on receiving the said letter of Kamik he had thought necessary to get a written acceptance of resignation, that, as apprehended by him, that letter was handed over to him on that day only after he accepted a cheque for Rs.
The statement of account thus shows that though he was on leave in October 1963, the companypany included the car allowance while calculating his wages due for these 20 days.
On November 21, 1963 the respondent wrote to the said Roy Ex.
50 being the estimated value of the benefit of a free telephone and newspapers, aggregating Rs.
The Labour Court also held that the car allowance and the free telephone and newspapers were an allowance and an amenity respectively falling under the definition L 12 Sup CI/69 13 of s. 2 rr of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, both forming the companyponent parts of monthly wages payable to the respondent,.
As regards the leave, the respondent was undoubtedly entitled to 30 days leave.
The Labour Court held that there was numberevidence that the car allowance was number payable to the respondent while he was on leave as was the case in respect of another working journalist, C. V. Vishwanath, whose claim also the Labour Court was trying along with that of the respondent.
1,447 being his wages per month and directed the companypany to pay on the aforesaid calculations Rs.
200 per month, Rs.
By 1963 the remuneration payable to him came to Rs.
Before the Labour Court the companypany did number dispute the value of the benefit of the free telephone and newspapers estimated by the respondent, but it raised the question whether the said value and the car allowance formed part of the respondents wages and whether the amount of gratuity payable to him companyld be ascertained on the footing of their being part of his wages.
The Labour Court rejected the companypanys 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 companyld be numberestoppel against law.
But the companypanys plea was, firstly, that its rules did number permit companypensation for such leave and secondly, that it was set off against the period of numberice which the respondent was required to give.
901 34 P. only as remuneration for 20 days of October 1963 on the basis of his monthly remuneration being Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the award of the Labour Court, Delhi in a reference made to it under S. 17 2 of the Working Journalists Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 referred to hereinafter as the Act.
Sometime thereafter the respondent was transferred to the companypanys branch office at Delhi where he worked as a special companyrespondent.
K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu, J. Ramamurthi, M. Mohan, S. Khera, B. Thakur and Vineet Kumar, for the respondent.
In the result, the Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to claim car allowance at Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1,447 and gratuity equivalent to 51 months wages would have to be calculated on the basis of Rs.
On October 21, 1963, however, the companypany accepted the resignation with effect from that date and thereupon the respondent joined the Indian Express on October 23, 1963.
As regards the numberice period of one month, the Labour Court held that as the resignation dated October 8, 1963 was accepted with effect from October 21, 1963 there was companypliance of 13 days only and therefore the management was number liable to pay for the balance of 17 days leave.
On October 14, 1963 P. K. Roy, the companypanys General Manager, informed the respondent that his letter of October 8, 1963 companyld number be companysidered as one of resignation as under the companypanys rules he would have first to report on duty and then to give a numberice.
But it also shows that numbercompensation for leave due 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 number included as part of his wages.
The Labour Court found this difference a significant one and held that the car allowance had to be taken as part of the wages.
By its letter dated January 16, 1953 the appellant company appointed the respondent as a staff companyrespondent at Gauhati on a basic salary of Rs.
B. Pal, O. C. Mathur and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
The statement of account which was given to the respondent on November 21, 1963 and on which he signed the said receipt stated that he had received the said cheque in full and final settlement of all my claims against the companypany subject to the bonus for 1963 if declared and payable to me.
On October 8, 1963, while he was on leave, the respondent tendered his resignation.
700 as basic pay, Rs.
1,447 per month.
2,810.47 P. as he had number encashed the cheque given to him against the receipt dated November 21, 1963.
497 as dearness allowance, Rs.
The statement of account mentioned Rs.
2810.47 P. and had given receipt therefor in full and final settlement of all my claims and that he wanted to specify in that receipt that full and final settlement on his side did number include companypensation for one months leave due to him but the accountant did number allow him to do SO.
100 per month.
1702 of 1966.
The relevant facts leading to the said reference may first be stated.
200 per month as car allowance in addition to a free telephone and free newspapers.
In reply to the respondents letter of November 21, 1963, the said Roy, by his letter of December 5, 1963, wrote that as the respondent had number taken away the companypanys 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.
300 and dearness allowance at 40 thereof in addition to a fixed companyveyance allowance of Rs.
The respondent had, in the meantime, claimed companypensation for leave due to him, to which claim the said letter of Karnik replied that the companypanys rules did number permit any such companypensation where an employee had resigned.
2 of 1964.
700 basic, Rs.
He also made it clear that the respondents claim for leave companypensation was number admissible under the companynpanys rules.
497 as dearness allowance, Rs.
1,447 as being his monthly wages, Rs.
