THE MANAGEMENT OF HOTEL AMBASSADOR Vs. ITS WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE were certain industrial disputes in 1957 between the Management of Hotel Ambassador, the Petitioner, and its workmen and the Delhi State made a reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal by means of a notification dated 15th October 1957. One of the points referred was -

(2.) MR . R.L. Anand, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957 does not define "pay" but the definition of "wages" as given in Section 2 (rr) includes, apart from all remuneration etc. dearness allowance. It is contended that the previous reference in 1957 related to wages and, therefore, the question of dearness allowance was also included in that reference. As an award had already been given, it was not open to the workmen to ask for fixation of dearness allowance now. Mr. Anand relies on the meaning of the word "pay" given in Webster Dictionary, some of the meanings given are "remuneration"; "wages"; "salary" * * *. The argument is that the words "pay" and "wages" are synonymous and interchangeable and, therefore, the reference on the previous occasion should be regarded as one relating to wages which would include dearness allowance. The Industrial Tribunal in the award which has been challenged had stated that by the previous reference the issue raised was only with regard to the fixation of incremental pay scales for the several workmen and there was no item of reference regarding dearness allowance which was put into issue and on which any decision was given. Therefore, the principle of resjudicata could have no application. The other contention that the question of dearness allowance might and ought to have been raised at the stage of the previous reference by the workmen and since they had failed to do so, that would also attract the rule of resjudicata, was repelled by the Tribunal on the ground that the rule of "might" and "ought" appearing in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be made applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision of the Tribunal on this point may be stated in its own words: -

(3.) FOR all these reasons, the petition is dismissed with costs but I grant one month's time to the Petitioner for implementation of the award relating to dearness allowance.