Labour Law

Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers’ Union

AIR 1959 SC 1342; 1960 SCR (1) 476

Citation: AIR 1959 SC 1342; 1960 SCR (1) 476
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 15 May 1959
Bench: 3-Judge Bench - B.P. Sinha, C.J.; P.B. Gajendragadkar and K.N. Wanchoo, JJ.

Facts

Industrial disputes involving employees of Hotel Imperial were pending.
The management sought permission under Section 33 to dismiss or take action against certain workers.
Pending the decision, the workers were suspended.
The employer did not pay wages during suspension.
The workers’ union applied to the Industrial Tribunal for interim relief.
The Tribunal directed payment during the pendency of the proceedings.
The management challenged the order, arguing that:
the Tribunal had no express statutory power to grant interim relief;
suspension automatically relieved it of wage liability; and
interim payment effectively decided the dispute in advance.
The matter reached the Supreme Court.

Whether an Industrial Tribunal possesses incidental power to grant interim relief.
Whether an employer has an implied right to suspend a worker pending disciplinary action.
Whether wages remain payable during suspension where no contract, standing order or statute authorises non-payment.
How Section 33 protection operates during pending industrial proceedings.

A Tribunal’s power to adjudicate includes incidental powers reasonably necessary to make adjudication effective.
It may grant interim relief connected with the subject matter of the reference.
An employer may possess an implied power to suspend an employee pending enquiry or permission where continued presence is undesirable.
Suspension does not automatically terminate the contract of employment.
Unless a statute, certified standing order or express contractual term authorises withholding wages or payment of reduced subsistence allowance, the employer may remain liable for wages.
Interim relief must not finally prejudge the merits.

The workers continued to remain employees while the management’s proposed action was awaiting statutory permission.
Their contracts had not yet been validly terminated.
The management kept them away from work for its own disciplinary and operational reasons.
The existence of a power to suspend did not necessarily carry a separate power to stop wages.
That financial consequence required legal authority.
No sufficient standing order or contractual provision was shown that authorised complete non-payment.
Without interim payment, the workers could be deprived of subsistence for the entire period of potentially lengthy industrial proceedings.
This could make the statutory protection under Section 33 practically meaningless.
The Tribunal’s direction preserved the workers’ livelihood without deciding whether dismissal was ultimately justified.
The Court recognised that industrial adjudication must have practical power to prevent its final award from becoming ineffective.
Interim relief was therefore incidental to the adjudicatory jurisdiction.
The amount and conditions should remain reasonable and related to the pending dispute.
The employer retained the right to establish misconduct and seek final disciplinary relief.

The Supreme Court recognised the Tribunal’s incidental power to grant interim relief.
It held that suspension pending proceedings did not automatically permit complete withholding of wages in the absence of legal authority.
The workers were entitled to appropriate payment while the employment relationship continued.
Use this case for: Industrial Tribunals may grant interim subsistence relief, and a power to suspend does not by itself include a power to withhold all wages.