The court upheld the validity of the exemption from the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the introduction of a pension scheme in lieu of gratuity, considering it to provide better benefits for the workmen.

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is against an order dated 7th of March 2001 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour and Employment Department. By the said order the management of the two Tea Estates, i.e.; Nonoipara and Orangajuli owned by the petitioner company have been exempted from the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with effect from 1.1.1987, in exercise of powers vested in the State Government by Section 5(1) of the Act.

2. The relevant facts may be noticed at the outset.

The petitioner company is the owner of 17 tea gardens, 15 of which are located in the State of West Bengal. The two tea estates owned by the petitioner in the State of Assam are doing business under the name and style of Nonoipara Tea Estate and Oraigajuli Tea Estate, both of which are located in the erstwhile Darrang District of the State of Assam. According to the petitioner company, at the relevant point of time, the workmen of the two tea estates were enjoying all statutory benefits including gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. However, the clerical, medical and artisan staffs of the two tea estates raised a demand for pension. Accordingly, the petitioner, company formulated a draft pension/retirement scheme which, however, was not accepted by the workmen who insisted on certain further benefits. As according to the petitioner company the said demands of the workmen were not justified a conciliation proceeding under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was held which, however, failed. Thereafter by notification No. GLR.594/86/8 dated 21.1.1987 the State Government, in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 made a reference of the dispute between the parties to the Industrial Tribunal at Guwahati. On the basis of the said reference made reference Case No. 16 of 1987 was registered by the office of the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati.

3. The questions/issues referred for adjudication by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati may now be noticed as below.

(1) Whether the union is justified in espousing introduction of pension scheme of clerical, medical and artisan staff of Nonoipara and Orongajuli Tea Estate?

(b) If not, are the staff members of the above named tea estates entitled to any other relief in lieu thereof?

2 (a) Whether the management of M/s. Goodricke Group Ltd., Calcutta is justified in not introducing pension scheme to the staff members of their gardens located in Assam ?

(b) If not, what relief are these staff members entitled to in lieu thereof?

4. Reference case No. 16/1987 was decided by the learned Tribunal by its award dated 17.4.1995. While adjudicating the said reference the learned Tribunal came to a categorical finding that the pension scheme in dispute between the parties was in lieu of gratuity which was being enjoyed by the workmen of the two Tea Estate as per the provisions of the Act. The learned Tribunal, on a consideration of the issues involved in the reference made and the materials adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the clerical, medical and artisan staff of the two tea estates are entitled to enjoy the pension scheme in lieu of gratuity as the same is a better scheme. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal took the view that he petitioner company was not justified in not introducing the said scheme and by the award dated 17.4.1995 directions were issued for introduction of the pension scheme with effect from 1.1.1987.

5. Aggrieved by the award dated 17.4.1995 passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner company approached this Court by instituting a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition registered and numbered as civil rule No. 4013 of 1995 was disposed of by this Court on 7.3.2000 by taking the view that the award dated 17.4.1995 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal would not require the court's interference. However, implementation