GARMENT CLEANING WORKS BOMBAY Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two demands made by the respondents, the workmen of the appellant company, the Garment Cleaning Works, Bombay, were referred for industrial adjudication to the industrial tribunal under S. 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947. These demands were for gratuity and provident fund respectively. The tribunal has framed a gratuity scheme and has passed an order that the appellant should draw up a scheme of provident fund on the lines of the model provident fund scheme drawn by the Government under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 (Act XIX of 1952), with a rate of contribution of 6 1/4 per cent, of total wages. Both the gratuity scheme as drawn up and the directions as to the drawing up of a provident fund scheme are challenged by the appellant by its present appeal which it has brought to this Court by special leave.

(2.) In regard to the direction as to the gratuity scheme the argument which has been urged before us by Mr. Sen is that the problem of starting such a scheme should have been considered on an industry-cum-region basis and considerations relevant to the said basis should have been taken into account. In support of this argument he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Bharatkhand Textile Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Textile Labour Association, Amedabad (1960) 3 SCR 329. In that case the industrial court had no doubt dealt with a claim for gratuity made by the workmen on the industry-cum-region basis, and an attack against the validity of the said approach made by the employer in regard to the scheme was repelled by this Court. It would, however, be noticed that all that this Court decided in that case was that it was erroneous to contend that a gratuity scheme could never be based on industry-cum-region basis, and in support of this conclusion several considerations were set forth in the judgment. It is clear that it is one thing to hold that the, gratuity scheme can in a proper case be framed on industry-cum-region basis, and another thing to say that industry-cum-region basis is the only basis on which gratuity scheme can be framed. In fact, in a large majority of cases gratuity schemes are drafted on the basis of the units and it has never been suggested or held that such schemes are not permissible. Therefore the decision in the case of the Bharatkhand Textile Mfg. Co. Ltd., (1960) 3 SCR 329 does not support the proposition for which Mr. Sen contends.

(3.) Mr. Sen has then criticised some of the provisions in the gratuity scheme. Clause (ii) of the gratuity scheme provides that on retirement or resignation of a workman after ten years' service ten days' consolidated wages for each year's service should be awarded as gratuity. Mr. Sen quarrels with this provision. He contends that no gratuity should be admissible under this clause until and unless fifteen years' service has been put in by the employee. In support of this argument Mr. Sen has referred us to certain observations made by this Court in the case of Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1959) SCR 12 at p. 154. In that case the provisions of S. 5 (1) (a) (iii) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (45 of 1955), was struck down on the ground that its provisions violated the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g). The conclusion of this Court was that the provision for gratuity made by the said clause to an employee who had put in three years' service imposes an unreasonable restriction on the employees right to carry on business and is therefore liable to be struck down as unconstitutional. Dealing with that provision this Court incidentally observed that where the employee has been in continuous service of the employer for a period of more than fifteen years he would be entitled to gratuity on his resigning his post. Mr. Sen contends that this observation indicates that an employee who resigns his post cannot be entitled to any gratuity unless he has put in fifteen years' service. In our opinion, the observation on which this argument is based was not intended to lay down a rule of universal application in regard to all gratuity schemes, and so it cannot be made the basis of an attack against a gratuity scheme where instead of fifteen years' service 10 years' minimum service is prescribed to enable an employee to claim gratuity at the rate determined if he resigns after ten years service. Therefore we do not think that the provision of cl. (ii) (a) can be successfully challenged as being unreasonable.