1969 (4) TMI 112 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent, not being in the company's employment at the time he filed his claim, was entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.
2. Whether the respondent was estopped from making his claims due to the receipt signed in full and final settlement.
3. Whether the car allowance and the monetary value of the free telephone and newspapers could be included as part of the respondent's wages for calculating gratuity.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Avail Provisions of the Act:
The first contention was that the respondent, not being in the company's employment at the time he filed his claim, was not a "working journalist" and therefore not entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the Act. The court examined the definitions under Section 2 of the Act and similar definitions in other statutes like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court cited previous judgments, including Western India Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal and Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. vs. Raghunath, which established that an ex-employee could still be considered a workman for the purposes of claims arising during their employment. The court concluded that the definitions should be construed in light of the context, and the scheme of the Act allows an ex-employee to maintain claims for benefits accrued during employment.

2. Estoppel from Making Claims:
The second issue was whether the respondent was estopped from making his claims due to the receipt signed in full and final settlement. The court found that the respondent did not make any representation that he had waived his claim for leave period or that the company acted on such representation. The company's failure to produce its rules disallowing such compensation and the lack of evidence showing that the respondent's claim was adjusted against the notice period further weakened the company's position. The court held that the plea of estoppel could not be invoked against the claim for compensation for the leave period. The court also noted that the receipt was obtained under stress, and the respondent did not cash the cheque given to him, indicating that he did not consider the settlement final.

3. Inclusion of Car Allowance and Monetary Value of Free Telephone and Newspapers in Wages:
The third contention was whether the car allowance and the monetary value of the free telephone and newspapers could be included as part of the respondent's wages for calculating gratuity. The court examined the facts and found that the telephone and newspapers were provided without restrictions on their use for personal purposes, and the car allowance was not shown to be a reimbursement for work-related expenses. The court referred to the definition of 'wages' under Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which includes allowances and amenities. The court concluded that both the car allowance and the benefit of the free telephone and newspapers were part of the respondent's wages and should be included in the calculation of gratuity.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent was entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the Act, was not estopped from making his claims, and that the car allowance and the monetary value of the free telephone and newspapers were part of his wages for calculating gratuity. The appeal was dismissed with costs.