# NEW DELHI & OTHERS v. HOTEL WORKERS' UNION - **Citation:** [1960] 1 S.C.R. 476 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1960 - **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Ga.Jendra.Gadka.B, K. N. w A.NOHOO - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/new-delhi-others-v-hotel-workers-union-1782 - **Pages:** 17 ## Headnote Industrial Dispute-Employer seeking permission to dismiss workmen as result of enquiry-Suspension of workmen pending decision of such application by Tribunal-Validity-Workmen, if entitled to wages during period of suspension-Grant of interim relief-Power of Supreme Court-Industrial Disputes Act, r947 (I'f' of r947), ss. I0(4), 33. The appellants. who were the managements of the three hotels, decided to dismiss some of their workmen who were found guilty of misconduct as a result of enquiries held by them and suspended them without pay pending the receipt of the permission of the Industrial Tribunal under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen applied to the Industrial Tribunal for the grant of interim relief pending disposal of the applications and the Tribunal granted the relief prayed for amounting to full wages and .a sum of Rs. 25 per head per month in lieu of food. The managements appealed against such grant, but the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals. The appellants came up to this court by special leave. The two questions for decision in the appeals were, (r) whether any wages were at all payable to the suspended workmen pending permission being sought under s. 33 to dismiss them and the decision of the applications under s. 33 of the Act, and, (2) whether the Industrial Tribunal was competent to grant interim relief except by an interim award that was published. H e!d, that it was well settled that under the ordinary law of master and servant the power to suspend the servant without S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 477 pay could not be implied as a term in an ordinary contract of z959 service between the master and the servant but must arise either from an express term in the contract itself or a statutory provi- The Management of sion governing such contract. Hotel Imperial Hanley v. Pease & Partners, Limited, 1915 (1) K.B. 698; v. Wallwork v. Fielding and Ors., 1922 (2) K.B. 66; Secretary of State Hotel Workers' for Itidia in Council v. Surendra Nath Goswami, I.L.R. 1939 (1) Cal. Union 46 and Rura Ram v. Divisional Superintendent, N. W.R .. I.L.R. VII (1954) Punj. 415, referred to. Buts. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which took away the right of the employer to dismiss the employee except with the permission of the Industrial Tribunal, introduced a fundamental change in industrial law in modification of the common law by empowering the employer by implication to suspend the contract of employment and thus relieve himself of the obligation to pay the wages and the employee of rendering service, where, as a result of a proper enquiry, he came to the conclusion that an employee should be dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances created by the enactment of s. 33 of the Act it was just and fair that Industrial Tribunals, which had the power to go beyond the ordinary law of master and servant, s110uld imply such a term in the contract of employment. The result, therefore, would be that if the Tribunal granted the permission, the suspended contract would come to an end and there would be no further obligation on the part of the employer to pay any wages after the date of suspension. If on the other hand, the permission was refused, the workmen would be entitled to all their wages from the date of suspension. Western India Automobile Association v. The Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, [1949] F.C.R. 321 and Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Brijnandan Pandey, [1956] S.C.R. Boo, referr~d to. Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup, [1956] S.C.R. 916; The Management of Ranipur Colliery v. Dhuban Singh, C.A. 768/57, decided on 20+59, M/s. Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan, C. As. 746 and 747/57, decided on 29-4-59 and Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen, [1960] (1) S.C.R. 32 explained and relied on. But the employer's power of suspension could not take away the power of the Tribunal to grant interim relief to the workmen under the Act, the words " inciden ta! thereto " occurring in s ## Text I959 Kamarhatty Co., Ltd. •• U shnath Pakrashi Wanehoo ]. I959 Mayaz 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] Learned counsel for the appellant wanted to argue that this was not a case of discharge or dismissal but of lay-off. We did not permit him to raise this argument because the special leave was limited only to the question set out above. The answer to that question has already been indicated above and on that answer the appeal must fail. We therefore dismiss the appeal, but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs of this Court. Appeal dismissed. THE MANAGEMENT OF HOTEL IMPERIAL, NEW DELHI & OTHERS v. HOTEL WORKERS' UNION (B. P. SINHA, P. B. GA.JENDRA.GADKA.B and K. N. w A.NOHOO, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Employer seeking permission to dismiss workmen as result of enquiry-Suspension of workmen pending decision of such application by Tribunal-Validity-Workmen, if entitled to wages during period of suspension-Grant of interim relief-Power of Supreme Court-Industrial Disputes Act, r947 (I'f' of r947), ss. I0(4), 33. The appellants. who were the managements of the three hotels, decided to dismiss some of their workmen who were found guilty of misconduct as a result of enquiries held by them and suspended them without pay pending the receipt of the permission of the Industrial Tribunal under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen applied to the Industrial Tribunal for the grant of interim relief pending disposal of the applications and the Tribunal granted the relief prayed for amounting to full wages and .a sum of Rs. 25 per head per month in lieu of food. The managements appealed against such grant, but the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals. The appellants came up to this court by special leave. The two questions for decision in the appeals were, (r) whether any wages were at all payable to the suspended workmen pending permission being sought under s. 33 to dismiss them and the decision of the applications under s. 33 of the Act, and, (2) whether the Industrial Tribunal was competent to grant interim relief except by an interim award that was published. H e!d, that it was well settled that under the ordinary law of master and servant the power to suspend the servant without S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 477 pay could not be implied as a term in an ordinary contract of z959 service between the master and the servant but must arise either from an express term in the contract itself or a statutory provi- The Management of sion governing such contract. Hotel Imperial Hanley v. Pease & Partners, Limited, 1915 (1) K.B. 698; v. Wallwork v. Fielding and Ors., 1922 (2) K.B. 66; Secretary of State Hotel Workers' for Itidia in Council v. Surendra Nath Goswami, I.L.R. 1939 (1) Cal. Union 46 and Rura Ram v. Divisional Superintendent, N. W.R .. I.L.R. VII (1954) Punj. 415, referred to. Buts. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which took away the right of the employer to dismiss the employee except with the permission of the Industrial Tribunal, introduced a fundamental change in industrial law in modification of the common law by empowering the employer by implication to suspend the contract of employment and thus relieve himself of the obligation to pay the wages and the employee of rendering service, where, as a result of a proper enquiry, he came to the conclusion that an employee should be dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances created by the enactment of s. 33 of the Act it was just and fair that Industrial Tribunals, which had the power to go beyond the ordinary law of master and servant, s110uld imply such a term in the contract of employment. The result, therefore, would be that if the Tribunal granted the permission, the suspended contract would come to an end and there would be no further obligation on the part of the employer to pay any wages after the date of suspension. If on the other hand, the permission was refused, the workmen would be entitled to all their wages from the date of suspension. Western India Automobile Association v. The Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, [1949] F.C.R. 321 and Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Brijnandan Pandey, [1956] S.C.R. Boo, referr~d to. Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup, [1956] S.C.R. 916; The Management of Ranipur Colliery v. Dhuban Singh, C.A. 768/57, decided on 20+59, M/s. Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan, C. As. 746 and 747/57, decided on 29-4-59 and Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen, [1960] (1) S.C.R. 32 explained and relied on. But the employer's power of suspension could not take away the power of the Tribunal to grant interim relief to the workmen under the Act, the words " inciden ta! thereto " occurring in s. 10(4) of the Act made it clear that interim relief, where admissible, could be granted as a matter incidental to the main question under reference, although it might not be expressly mentioned in the terms of.the reference. It is not necessary to decide whether an interim relief of this nature amounted to an interim award. Even assuming that the Industrial Tribunal could not grant interim relief except by an interim award which required publication that could not preclude 478 SUPREME COUI~T REPORTS [1960(1)] z959 this Court from granting interim relief in the same manner as the Industrial Tribunal could and ss. 15, 17 or 17A could have no The Manag,,nent of application to such an order passed by this Court. Hotel Imperial Ordinarily interim relief could not be the whole relief the v. w0rkn1en would get in case of final success and the appellants Hotel Workers' should not be made to pay more than half the amount adjudged Union by the Industrial Tribunal as interim relief in these cases. Wamhoo ]. CIVIL APPELI,ATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 31-33 of 1958. Appeal by special leave from the decision dated May 28, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow (Delhi Branch), in Appeals Nos. III. 313-315 of 1955. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-Genery raise common points. The three appellants arc the managements of (1) Imperial Hotel, New Delhi, (2) Maiden's Hotel, Delhi and (3) Swiss Hotel, Delhi, the respondents being their respective workmen repre&ented by the Hotel Workers' Union, Katra Shahanshahi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. It seems that disputes were going on between these hotels and their workmen for some time past about the conditions of labour of the workmen employed therein. Matters seem to have come to a head about the end of September, 1955 and a strike of all the workmen in all the three hotels took place on October 5, 1955. Before this general strike in the three hotels, there had been trouble in Imperial Hotel only in August, 1955. In that connection charge-sheets were served on 22 workmen and an enquiry was held by the management which came to the conclusion that the workmen were S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 479 guilty of misconduct and therefore decided to dismiss z959 them. Consequently,. notices were served on October 4, 1955, upon these workmen informing them that the The Managem~t of h d d 'd d t d' . th b' t Holel lmperial management a em e o ism1ss em su 1ec to v. obtaining permission under s. 33 of the Industrial Hotel workers' Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). It Union seems that this action of the management of Imperial Hotel led to the general strike in all the three hotels ori Wanchoo f. October 5, 1955. Thereupon the three managements issued notices to the workmen on October 5, 1955, directing them to re-join their duties within three hours failing which action would be taken against them. As the workmen did not join within this time, fresh notices were issued the same day asking them to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. In the meantime they were informed that they would be under suspension. On October 7, 1955, the three managements issued notice~ •to the workmen informing them that it had been decided to dismiss them and that they were being suspended pending the obtaining of permission under s. 33 of the Act. As the disputes between the hotels and their workmen were already under consideration of G.overnment, an order of reference was made on October 12, 1955, relating to Imperial Hotel. In this reference a large number of matters were referred to adjudication including the case of 22 workmen whom the management of the hotel had decided to dismiss on October 4, 1955. This reference with respect to_ Imperial Hotel, however, did not refer to the workmen whom the management had decided to dismiss on October 7, 1955, Further enquiries seem to have been made by the management in this connection and eventually it was decided to confirm the action taken on October 7 with respect to nineteen workmen. These nineteen workmen had in the meantime applied under s. 33-A of the Act on the ground that they had bee:Q. suspended without pay for an indefinite period and had thus been punished in breach of s. 33. Thus the dispute so far as Imperial Hotel is concerned was with respect to 44 workmen in all, 25 of whom were included in· the 480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] r959 reference of October 12, 1955, and the remaining 19 The Management of had filed an application under s. 33-A of the Act. It Hotel Imperial does not appear, however, that Imperial Hotel made v. any application under s. 33 of the Act for permission Hotel wo,km' to dismiss these 19 workmen; though an application Union under that section was made on October 22, 1955, with Wanchoo J. respect to 22 workmen whose dismissal was decided upon on October 4, 1955. So far as Maiden's Hotel is concerned, the case relates to 26 workmen whose dismissal was finl!-lly considered by the management to be necessary on further enquiry after October 7, 1955. An order of reference was made in the case of this hotel on November 23, 1955, in which the case of 26 workmen was referred to the tribunal along with other matters. Later, however, 12 of these workmen were re-employed on December 10, 1955, and the real dispute therefore so far as this hotel is concerned related to 14 workmen. In the case of Swiss Hotel also there were further enquiries after the notices of October 7. In the meantime, an application was made under s. 33-A of the Act by the union to the conciliation officer. Eventually, it appears that on November 10, 1955, reference was made with respect to 14 workmen to the tribunal for adjudication. We now come to the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. In all three cases, applications were filed on behalf of the workmen for interim relief, the date of the application being October 22 in case of Imperial Hotel and November 26 in case of Maiden's Hotel and Swiss Hotel. Replies to these applications was filed by the managements on December 5, 1955. On the same day, the Industrial Tribunal passed an order granting interim relief. In the case of Imperial Hotel, it ordered that 43, out of 44 workmen, who had applied for interim relief should be paid their wages plus a sum of Rs. 25 per month per head in lieu of food till final decision in the matter of the dismissal of these workmen. In the case of Maiden's Hotel; the management was prepared to take back 12 workmen and they were ordered to report for duty or or before December 10, 1955. It was also ordered that these 12 - " S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 481 workmen till they were re-employed and the "remainr959 ing" 13 workmen till the decision of their case would Th M - 1 1 b "d b f . t . 1. f th . f e anagemen o e pa1 y way o m er1m re ie e1r wages rom Hotel Imperial October 1, 1955, ;plus Rs. 25 per month per head in v. lieu of food. No order was passed with respect to the Hotel Workers' 26th workman, namely, Chiranjilal sweeper. In the Union case of Swiss Hotel, the management was prepared to k f h d d Wanchooj. ta e back six o the workmen and t ey were or ere to report for duty on or before December 10, 1955. In other respects, the order was in the same terms as in the case of Maiden's Hotel. Then followed three appeals by the three hotels against the three orders granting interim relief. These appeals were dismissed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal on May 28, 1956. Thereupon the three hotels applied for special leave to appeal to this Court, which was granted. They also applied for stay of the order of the Industrial Tribunal relating to payment of wages plus Rs. 25 per month per head in lieu of food. Stay was granted by this Court on June 5, 1956, on condition that the employers would pay to the employees a sum equal to half of the amount adjudged payable by the orders dated December 5, 1955, in respect of the arrears accrued due till then and continue to pay in the same proportion in future until determination of the dispute betweenj;he parties. It appears that after this order of June 5, 1956, even those workmen who had not been re-employed after the order of December 5, 1955, were taken back in service on July 15, 1956, by the three hotels. Thus, 2 workmen in the case of Swiss Hotel, 13 workmen in the case of Maiden's Hotel and 43 workmen in the case of Imperial Hotel were taken back in service. The main contentions on behalf of the hotels a.re two, namely, (1) are any wages payable at all to workmen who are suspended pending permission being sought under s. 33 of the Act for their dismissal ? and (2) is an industrial tribunal competent to grant interim relief without making an interim a.ward which should have been published ? 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1960(1)] z959 Re. (1). Th M I ·' The contention of the appellants under this head is ' anagemen °' th t ' f h k d' · ' Hotel Imperial a suspens10n o t e wor men pen mg perm1ss10n v. under s. 33 of the Act imposes an absolute bar to the Hotel Workers' payment of any wages to the suspended workmen. On Union the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that susp'ension of workmen involving n-·anchoo ]. non-payment of wages is not contemplated at all under the ordinary law of master and servant in the absence of an express term in the contract of employment to that effect; and as in these cases there were admittedly no standing orders providing suspension without payment of wages, it was not open to the appellants to withhold wages as the orders of suspension made in these cases merely amounted to this that the employers were not prepared to take work from the workmen. Even so, the right of the workmen to receive wages remained and the employer was bound to pay the wages during the period of so-called suspension. The Industrial Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal took the view that in the absence of an express term in the contract of employment, wages could not be withheld, even though the employer might suspend the workman in the sense that he was'not prepared to take any work from them. The first question therefore that falls for consideration is the extent of the power of the employer to suspend an employee under the ordinary law of master and servant. It is now well settled that the power to suspend, in the sense of a right to forbid a servant to work, is not· an implied term in an ordinary contract between master and servant, and that such a power can only be the creature either of a statute governing the contract, or of an express term in the contraet itself. Ordinarily, therefore, the absence of such power either as an express term in the contract or in the rules framed under some statute would mean that the master would have no power to suspend a w_ork,man and even if he does so in the sense that he forbids the employee to work, he will have to pay wages during the so-called period of suspension. Where, however, there is power to suspend either in the contract of employment or in S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 483 the statute oi.vthe rules framed thereunder, the suspenz959 sion has the effect of temporarily suspending the M - 1 · f d · h h The anagement of re ation o master an servant wit t e consequence H tel Imperial that the servant is not bound to render service and 0 v. the( master is not bound to pay. These principles of the Hotel workers' ordinary law of master and servant are well settled Union and have not been disputed before us by eithel' party. Reference in this connection may be made to Hanley Wanchoo l· v. Pease and Partners, Limited(1), Wallwork v. Fielding (9), Secretary. of State for India in Council v. Surendra Nath Goswami (8) and Rura Ram v. Divisional Superintendent: N. W. Railway('). The next question that falls for consideration is whether these principles also apply to a case. where the master has decided to dismiss a servant, but cannot do so at once as he has to obtain th11 permission necessary under s. 33 of the Act and therefore suspends the workman till he gets such permission. This brings us to the sphere of industrial law. Ordinarily, ifs. 33 of the Act did not intervene, the master would be entitled to exercise his power of dismissing the servant in accordance with the law of master and servant and payment of wages would immediately cease as the contract would come to an end. But s. 33 of the Act has introduced a fundamental change ill the law of master and servant so far as c:ases which fall within the Act are concerned; It has therefore to be seen whether Industrial 'l'ribunals which· are dealing with the matter under the Act must follow the ordinary law of master and servant as indicated above or can imply a term in the contra.ct in the peculiar .circumstances supervening under s. 33 of the Act, to the effect that where the master has concluded his enquiry and come to the decision that the servant should be dismissed and thereupon suspends him pending permission under's. 33, he has the power to order suoh suspension, which would result in temporarily suspending the relation of master and servant, so that the servant is not bound to render service and the master is not bound to pay wages. The power of Industrial Tribunal in (1) [1915] 1 K.B. 6g8. (3) I L.R. [1939] 1 Cal. 46. (2) [1922] 2 K.B. 66. (4) I.L.R. VII (1954) Punj~ 415. 484 SUPREME COUR'l' REPORTS [1960(1)] 1959 matters of this kind arising out of industrial disputes h - 1was considered by the Federal Court in Western India TeManagementoA b'l A • • Th Ind ·z T'b a}, H 01,1 ImpeYial utomo i e ssociation v. e ustria ri un , v. Bombay(') and the followiug observations of Mahajan, J. Hotel Workers' (as he then was) at p. 345 are apposite: Union " Adjudication does not, in our. opinion, mean wanchoo J. adjudication according to the strict law of master and servant. The award of the tribunal may contain provisions for settlement of a. dispute which no Court could order if it was bound by ordinary Jaw, but the tribunal is not fettered in any way by these 'limitations. In Volume 1 of ' Labour Disputes and Collective Bargaining' by Ludwig Teller, it is said at p.,536 that industrial arbitration may involve the extension of an existing agreement or the making of a new one, or in general the creation of new obligation or modification of old ones, while commercial arbitration generally concerns itself with interpretation of existing obligations and disputes relating to existing agreements. In our opinion, it is a true statement about the functions of an industrial tribunal in la.hour disputes." This Court in Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Brijnandan Pandey (') also recognised the correctnes's of the dictum laid down in the a.hove :Federal Court decision and observed that there was a. distinction between commercial and industrial arbitration, and after referring to the same passage in "Labour Disputes and Collective Bargaining " by Ludwig Teller (Vol. 1, p. 536), proceeded to lay down as follows at p. 810 :- " A Court of law proceeds on the footing that no power exists in the courts to make contracts for people; and the parties must make their own contracts. The Courts reach their limit of power when they enforce contracts which the parties have made. An Industrial Tribunal is not so fettered and ma.v create new obligations or modify contracts in the interests of industrial peace, to protect legitimate trade union activities and to prevent unfair practice or victimisation." (I) [1949] F.C.R. 3•1. (•) (1956] S:C.R. Boo. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS' 485 It is clear therefore that Industrial Tribunals have x959 the powe~ t~ go beyond th.e or?in?'ry law of master and Th• Management of servant, if circumstances Justify it. In these cases the Hotel Imperial decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal has proceedv. ed strictly on the basis of the ordinary law of master Hotel Workers' and servant-without regard to the fundamental change Union introduced in that law by the enactment of s. 33 of the Act. All the cases to which we have been referred Wamhoo J. with respect to the ordinary law1ofmaster and servant had no occasion to consider the impact of s. 33 of the Act on that law as to the power of the master to suspend. We have, therefore, to see whether it would be reasonable for an Industrial Tribunal where it is dealing with a case to which s. 33 of the Act applies, to imply a term in the contra.ct giving power to the master .to suspend a servant when the master has come to the conclusion after necessary enquiry that the servant has committed misconduct and ought to be dismissed, but cannot do so because of s. 33. It is urged on behalf of the respondents that there is nothing in the language of s. 33 to warrant the conclusion that when an employer has to apply under it for permission he can suspend the workmen concerned. This argument, however, begs the question because if there were any such provision in s. 33, it w-ould be an express provision in the statute authorising such suspension and no further question of an implied term would arise. What we have to see is whether in the absence of an express provision to that effect in s. 33, it will be reasonable for an Industrial Tribunal in these extraordinary circumstances arising. out of the effect of s. 33 to imply a. term in the contra.ct giving power to the employer to suspe,nd the contra.ct of employment, thus relieving himself of the obligation to pay wages and relieving the servant of the corresponding obligation to render service. We are of opinion that in the peculiar circumstances which have a.risen on account of the enactment of s. 33, it is but just and fair that Industrial Tribunals should imply such a term in the contract of employment. This Court had occasion to consider this matter in four cases, though the point was not specifically argued 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] z959 Th M -- 1 ,,in the manner in which it has been argued before us e anagemcn o1 B 'd · f h '11 Hotelimperial now. ut a cons1 erat10n o t ese cases w1 show v. that, though the point was not specifically argued, Hotel workm' the view of this Court has consistently been that in Union such cases a term should be implied giving power to the master to suspend the contract of employment after Wanchoo ]. he has come to the conclusion on a proper enquiry that the servant should be dismissed and has to apply to the tribunal for permission under s. 33. In Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup (1), there was a provision in the standing orders for suspension for four days without pay. In actual fact, however, the employer in that case after having come to the conclusion that the employees should be dismissed suspended them without pay pending permission of the tribunal and it was held that such suspension was not punishment, even though it exceeded four days. This was the main point which was under consideration in that case; but it was further observed that such a suspension was only an interim measure and would last till the application for permission to punish the workman was made and the tribunal had passed orders thereon. If the permission was accorded the workman would not be paid during thll period of suspension : but if the permission was refused1 he woald have to be paid for the whole period. In The Management of Ranipur Colliery v. Bhuban Singh ('), it was pointed out.that but for this ban the employer would have been entitled to dismiss the employee immediately after the completion of his enquiry on coming to the conclusion that the employee was guilty of misconduct. The contract of ·service would thus be brought to an end by an immediate dismissal after the conclusion of the enquiry and the employee would not be entitled to any further wages. But s. 33 steps in and stops the employer from dismissing the employee immediately on the conclusion of his enquiry and compels him to seek permission of the Tribunal. It was, therefore, reasonable that the employer having done ·au that he could do to bring the contract of service to an end should not be (1) [1956] S.C.R. 916. (2f C.A. 768/57, decided on April 20, 19:;9. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOH.TS 487 expected to continue paying the employee thereafter. x959 It was pointed out that in such a case the employer T' -- 1 Id b · t'fi d · d' th 1 . h t '"Management o wou . e JUS 1 e m suspen mg e emp oyee wit ou Hotel Imperial· pay as the time taken by the tribunal to accord perv. mission under ·s. 33 of the Act was beyond the control Hotel Workers' of the employer. Lastly, it was pointed out that this Union would not cause any hardship to the employee; for if h d Wanchoo ]. t e tribunal grante permission, the employee would not get anything from the date of his suspension without pay, while if the permission was refused he would be entitled to his back wages from such date. Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. (1) was referred to and it was explained that the principle laid down in that case would only apply wheres. 33 would be applicable. In Messrs. Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan (9), ethe view taken in the two earlier cases was reiterated with the rider that in case the employer did not hold an enquiry and suspend the workman pending permission, he would have to1 go on paying the wages till the proceedings under s. 33 were concluded and the tribunal granted permission to dismiss the·· workman. In Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen (3), the rider laid down in the case Messrs. Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. (9) was· further extended to a case of an adjudication under s. 15 of the Act and it was pointed out that if there was any defect in the enquiry by the employer he could make good that defect by producing necessary evidence before the tribunal ; but in that case he will have to pay the wages up to the date of the aW!lord of the tribunal, even if the award went in his favour. It is urged on behalf of the respondents that there were at any rate some Standing Orders, particularly in Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills LUJ. (1) and The Management of Ranipur Colliery (') giving power to suspend for some. period of time and therefore further suspension might be justified on the basis of those Standing Orders. In the case of Messrs. Sasa Musa Sugar (1) [1956] S.C.R. 916. (2) ~.As. 746 .t 747/57, !l April 201 19,59· 488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1960(1)] '959 • Works (P) Ltd, ('), however, there were no Standing Th M - ,, Orders till then in force. The ratio of the decision in e anagement o, h Hotel bnp