Summary
The Supreme Court upheld approval of the workman’s dismissal because a one-time ex gratia interim payment did not form part of the monthly wages required before approval. There was no evidence of a recurring contractual entitlement to that payment. The Court rejected the High Court’s alternative reasoning that any wage shortfall could be adjusted against leave encashment, while maintaining its ultimate conclusion and dismissing the workman’s appeal.
Issues
- Whether a one-time ex gratia interim payment formed part of wages for the dismissal-approval requirement.
- Whether an assumed wage shortfall could be adjusted against leave encashment.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(y), Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947An isolated ex gratia payment did not satisfy the statutory definition or included allowances. A contractual entitlement, supported by evidence of payment under the terms of employment, was required on these facts. (¶¶ 23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37)
- Section 6E(2)(b) and proviso, Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The employer had paid the required one month’s wages; the disputed one-time ex gratia amount was not part of that obligation, supporting approval of the dismissal. (¶¶ 23, 24, 37)
Held
- The disputed Rs.110 had been paid only once as ex gratia interim relief. It was not wages or an included allowance, and no evidence established regular payment pursuant to the employment terms. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 37)
- The actual one-month wage payment complied with the statutory requirement. Approval was therefore warranted on that basis. (¶¶ 22, 37)
- The High Court should first have determined whether the disputed amount was wages. Its reasoning that an assumed shortfall could be adjusted against leave encashment was incorrect and was expressly disapproved. (¶¶ 38, 39)
- The High Court’s conclusion was upheld on the Supreme Court’s different reasoning and the workman’s appeal dismissed. (¶¶ 39, 40)
Result
Appeal dismissed. High Court’s ultimate conclusion maintained, but its leave-encashment adjustment reasoning rejected.