MANAGEMENT OF TOURNAMULLA ESTATE Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from an award of the Labour Court, Quilon (Kerala State).

(2.) The point before us is simple. The workman concerned was charge-sheeted in respect of riotous and disorderly behaviour for having assaulted a tea maker Shri U. M. Abdul Kader on May 29, 1965, inside the factory. A departmental enquiry was held wherein, it is said, he was given every opportunity to fully participate. He was found guilty of misconduct by the domestic tribunal and was accordingly dismissed. There was a scheme of gratuity in force, which was and is not challenged by the respondent. Clause 4 of that scheme, which is called "Terms of Agreement", provides that if a dispute arises regarding a claim for payment of gratuity of a workman who has been dismissed for misconduct, such a dispute shall be referred to the labour court having jurisdiction, for decision. As a dispute arose with regard to the payment of gratuity, the matter was referred to the Labour Court. Before that court, in the statement of case submitted by the Secretary of the Malabar Estate Workers' Union, it was stated in cl. (c) as follows:

(3.) In yet another case in Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. The Workmen, (1970) 2 SCR 935 one of the questions was whether a provision can be made in a gratuity scheme that if the misconduct is a gross one involving violence, riotous behaviour, etc., the qualifying period should be limited to fifteen years of continuous service. The earlier decision in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd., (1969) 2 SCR 307 was discussed and reference was made to it. The Court expressed agreement with the decision in the earlier case that matters which had impact on the discipline and the working of the concern, require a different treatment in the matter of forfeiture of gratuity. It is significant that in S. 4 (6) (b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, it has been provided as follows: