Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this present case case of Peerless Inn vs First Labour Court and ors. the matter which was already decided by the Labour Court was brought to Calcutta High Court under the appellate Jurisdiction of High Court, the issue in this present case arose out of Clause 5 of the Settlement Agreement between the employer (petitioner) and the employee in this case. Clause 5 of this agreement says that service charge which is charged by the customers from sales of Beverages and Foods shall be distributed among all employees and managerial personnel functioning in the hotel. This issue which was raised before the court was whether the employees of the hotel who are suspended shall also have right to get their share of earning of subsistence service they have given in hotel for a time period they worked for, to this labour court held that suspended employees are also eligible to get this share of income , this matter was then taken to the Calcutta High Court.
Writ petition was filed by the Hotel (petitioner) to which Calcutta High Court deemed not to interfere with the judgement pronounced by the Labour Court as the court deemed, that delay in justice may be deleterious to labour also if it gets costly, justice provided to labour is not really a justice, in pursuance of the West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act,1969. Justice Shekhar B Saraf observed, “ Infact keeping in view the general principles of industrial law, I am of the view that treating the term “employees” in the said clause as only employees that are presently working and excluding those who are suspended would amount to a very narrow interpretation of the said clause.” Justice Saraf also mentioned that the similar view was taken by the Supreme court in the case of Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, in which it was observed that , legistaions like Industrial; Dispute Acts are required to be interpreted , keeping in a view of the principles laid down by the preamble of the Constitution, keeping in mind the equality and welfare of everyone especially the weaker sections of the society. Therefore, Justice Saraf further mentioned “ ..in a case of ambiguity in the language of beneficial labour legislation, the Court have to resolve the quandary in the favour of conferment of, rather than denial of , a benefit on the labour by the Legislature but without r writing and/or doing violence to the provisions of the enactment.”
Therefore HC held that they agree with the observations of Labour Court , that is the benefit has to be curtailed by a settlement , the same has to be done in an expressed manner and dismissed the writ petition.
86540
103860
630
114
59824