The need for a liberal interpretation of welfare statutes and the resolution of ambiguities in favor of conferring benefits to labor.

JUDGMENT

Shekhar B Saraf, J. -

"The Constitution of India is not a non-aligned parchment but a partisan of social justice with a direction and destination which it sets in the Preamble and Art. 38, and so, when we read the evidence, the rulings, the statute and the rival pleas we must be guided by the value set of the constitution. We not only appraise Industrial Law from this perspective in the disputes before us but also realize that ours is a mixed economy with capitalist mores, only slowly wobbling towards a socialist order, notwithstanding Sri Garg's thoughts. And, after all, ideals apart, "law can never be higher than the economic order and the cultural development of society brought to pass by that economic order." The new jurisprudence in industrial relations must prudently be tuned to the wave-length of our constitutional values." ( Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. -v- Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor, Sabha and others, 1980 AIR(SC) 1896 )

1. The above prose of V. R. Krishna Iyer, J., better known as the People's Judge, resonates in each ion of my being as I embark on the short journey to resolve the present controversy between Management and Labour. The present application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner (the Management) is assailing an award dated December 6, 2017 passed by the First Labour Court, Kolkata, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Labour Court'). The issue that was brought before the said Labour Court was with regard to the interpretation of Clause 5 of the settlement agreement that had been reached between the petitioner company and the employees of the petitioner company in reference under Section 36A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act').

2. Mr. Ranjay De, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company placed Clause 5 before this Court and argued that the service charge that is collected on Food and Beverage sales was decided to be disbursed amongst all the employees and the managerial personnel connected with the hotel functioning. It was his submission that the service charge is only payable to personnel who are functioning in the hotel, and not to personnel that have been suspended. He submitted that as the employees in question were suspended, and the said suspension having been upheld by the Industrial Tribunal by an order dated December 17, 2018, there was no question of the service charge being treated as part of wages.

3. He further relied on the West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Subsistence Act') and specifically placed Section 2(f) defining 'suspension' and Section 2(g) defining 'wages'. He submitted that the definition of wages in the Subsistence Act would be the meaning assigned to the term 'wages' in Section 2(rr) of the said Act. He further placed reliance on Section 3 to indicate that the Subsistence Act only quantifies the amount of the subsistence allowance payable to an employee and nothing more.

4. Placing reliance thereafter on Section 2(rr) of the said Act, he canvassed the argument that unless the employee was functioning, he could not be entitled to any service charge, as the same did not find any place in the above definition under Section 2(rr). He submitted that neither was the service charge included in Clauses (i) to (iv) nor was it covered in the first part of the definition of wages. He, in fact, submitted that only if the terms of employment were fulfilled, the workmen would be entitled to any benefits/privileges.

5. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bank of India vs. T.S. Kelawala, 1990 4 SCC 744 to buttress his argument that wages are payable to the employees only upon fulfillment of the contract and not otherwise. He further relied on State of Punjab vs. Jaswant Singh Kanwar, 2014 13 SCC 622 wherein the Supreme Court had held that a person, who is suspended would be debarred fr