Shelat, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave, is directed against the award of the Labour Court, Delhi in a reference made to it under Section 17 (2) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (referred to hereinafter as the Act.)
(2.) The relevant facts leading to the said reference may first be stated.
(3.) By its letter dated 16-1-1953 the appellant-company appointed the respondent as a staff correspondent at Guahati on a basic salary of Rs. 300 and dearness allowance at 40 per cent thereof in addition to a fixed conveyance allowance of Rs. 100 per month. Sometime thereafter the respondent was transferred to the company's branch office at Delhi where he worked as a special correspondent. By 1963 the remuneration payable to him came to Rs. 700 as basic pay, Rs. 497 as dearness allowance, Rs. 200 per month as car allowance in addition to a free telephone and free newspapers. On October 8, 1963, while he was on leave, the respondent tendered his resignation. On October 14, 1963 P. K. Roy, the company's General Manager, informed the respondent that this letter of October 8, 1963 could not be considered as one of resignation as under the company's rules he would have first to report on duty and then to give a notice. On October 21, 1963, however, the company accepted the resignation with effect from that date and thereupon the respondent jointed the Indian Express on October 23, 1963. Meanwhile, one V. G. Karnik, on behalf of the company, informed the respondent by his letter dated November 19, 1963 that in the absence of a proper notice by him there could be no termination of employment and that "your reported acceptance of another employment in the circumstances is in contravention of the terms and conditions of service of this company". The respondent had, in the meantime, claimed compensation for leave due to him, to which claim the said letter of Karnik replied that the company's rules did not permit any such compensation where an employee had signed. On November 21, 1963 the respondent wrote to the said Roy (Ex. W/4) that (1) after he had tendered his resignation there was a discussion between them when the matter of acceptance of his resignation was amicably settled and that it was thereafter that he joined the Indian Express, (2) the letter of Karnik that there was no termination of his employment was not correct, (3) after October 21, 1963 he had gone to the company's office to settle his accounts and collect the dues payable to him as also the letter of acceptance of his resignation but he was told that the accounts were not yet ready and he was not then paid even his salary and dearness allowance due up to October 20, 1963 although "I had 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 Karnik 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. 2810.47 P. and had given receipt therefore "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 not include compensation for one month's leave due to him but the accountant did not allow him to do so. 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 company subject to the bonus for 1963 if declared and payable to me." The statement of account mentioned Rs. 901.34 only as remuneration for 20 days of October 1963 on the basis of his monthly remuneration being Rs. 1,397 comprised of Rs. 700 as basic salary, Rs.200 as car allowance. The statement of account thus shows that though he was on leave in October 1963, the company included the car allowance while calculating his wages due for these 20 days. But it also shows that no compensation for leave due to him was paid an further that in calculating the gratuity payable to him the monetary value of free telephone and free newspapers and the car allowance were not included as part of his wages. It 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 not taken away the company's letter of acceptance of resignation by the time Karnik addressed the said letter, Karnik 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". He also made it clear that the respondent's claim for leave compensation was not admissible under the company's rules.;