SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th March, 1963
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
The Akola Electric Supply Co., (P.) Ltd., Appellant
Versus
J. N. Jarare and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 637 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M.C. Setalvad, Sr. Advocate, M/s. Vallabhdas Mehta and Sardar Bahadur, Advocates with him), for Appellant; M/s. S.A. Sohoni, Shanti Swarrup Khandula Lalit Kumar and Ganpat Rai, Advocates, for Respondents.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - GRATUITY - SCHEME - CLOSURE OF INDUSTRY - SCHEME NOT JUSTIFIED - Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, Section 38(a).
Fact of the Case:
The appellant company, a licensee for supplying electric energy, was directed by the Industrial Court to pay gratuity to its employees at the rate of 1/2 month's average wages for every employee with uninterrupted continuous service of not less than five years on termination of service, except by dismissal for misconduct. The award was made after the company's license had expired and its business had been taken over by the State Electricity Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Industrial Court was not justified in imposing a gratuity scheme on the company at a time when it had already ceased to carry on its business. The court found that gratuity schemes are planned on a long-term basis and are intended to help workmen after retirement, regardless of the cause of retirement, while retrenchment compensation is intended to give relief for the sudden and unexpected termination of employment.
Issues: Whether the Industrial Court was justified in imposing a gratuity scheme on the company after it had ceased to carry on its business.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Industrial Court erred in directing the company to pay gratuity to its employees because: * Gratuity schemes are planned on a long-term basis and are intended to help workmen after retirement, regardless of the cause of retirement. * Retrenchment compensation is intended to give relief for the sudden and unexpected termination of employment. * In the present case, the entire body of workmen would be "retiring" at one and the same time, so that in substance, though not in name, the provision of gratuity would be equivalent to the grant of retrenchment compensation, in addition to what is provided for in the statute.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the award made by the Industrial Court.
Judgement
DAS GUPTA, J. : This appeal by special leave is against an award for the Industrial Court at Nagpur under Section 38(a) of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 dated April 29, 1961. By an earlier award dated December 4, 1959, the Industrial Court ordered the payment of gratuity to the employees of the appellant Company on certain rates. The award was to come into force from December 4, 1959. On an application by the Company under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Nagpur High Court set aside the Industrial Courts order and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the question after examining the financial condition of the Company. After remand the Industrial Court took evidence of both parties as regards the financial condition of the Company and came to the conclusion that the Company was in a very sound financial position and could easily bear the burden of payment of gratuity to the extent of Rs.50,000/- or even more. Accordingly, the Industrial Court made a fresh award directing the payment of gratuity to the Company s employees at the rate of 1/2 month s average wages-the average wage to be calculated for the period December 1,1958 to November 30, 1959 to every employee who had to his credit uninterrupted continuous service of not less than five years on termination of his service, except by dismissal on account of misconduct. The award was directed to come into force from April 29, 1961.
2. The Appellant Company was a licensee for supplying electric energy to the public within the area approximating to the Municipal limits of Akola. The license expired on December 6, 1959. Prior to this the State Electricity Board had by a notice dated November 27, 1957, intimated its intention to exercise its option to purchase the undertaking on the expiry of the incense. It was after this notice had been served and it was known that the Company would be closing its business on December 6, 1959, that the claim for gratuity in respect of which the Industrial Court has made its award, was first made. Indeed, the very application for referring this and other disputes for arbitration contained the frank statement that it was in view of the impending closure of business that the claim for gratuity was being made. It is interesting to notice that the earlier award by the Industrial Court was made only two days before the company s license expired and the business was taken over by the Bombay Electricity Board. The award now under appeal was made more than a year after the Company had closed its business.
3. The main contention urges before us in support of the appeal is that the Tribunal was not justified in imposing on the Company a gratuity scheme at a time when it had already ceased to carry on its business. It is argued that gratuity- schemes are planned on a long term basis, the ruling principle being to make the employer to pay retrial benefits to such of its employees as retire from year to year. The framing of a gratuity scheme when an industry is on the verge of closure or after it has closed is, it is urged, wholly unjustified. In our opinion, there is considerable force in this contention.
4. It has been laid down by this Court that the statutory provision for payment of retrenchment compensation is no bar to the framing of a gratuity scheme. The question was fully considered by this Court in Indian Hume Pipe Co. v. Its Workmen, (1960) 2 SCR 32 where this Court pointed out that while gratuity is intended to help workmen after retirement to whatever cause the retirement, may be due to, retrenchment compensation is intended to give relief for the sudden and unexpected termination of employment by giving partial protection to the retrenched person and his family to enable them to tide over the hard period of unemployment. It has also been held by this Court in the Bharatkhand Textile Mfg., Co., Ltd. v. Textile Labour Assocn., (1960) 3 SCR 329 that the existence of a Provident Fund Scheme
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.