TATA CHEMICALS LTD Vs. RATILAL RAGHAVJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these petitions, the petitioner-Messrs Tata Chemicals Limited and its Manager have challenged the orders passed by the controlling authority under the Payment Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in Gratuity Applications No.73 of 2001, 74 of 2001, 75 of 2001, 65 of 2001, 76 of 2001, 88 of 2001 & 64 of 2001 respectively and the orders passed by the appellate authority under the Act in Appeals No.103 of 2002 to 109 of 2002.

(2.) Mr.Thaker, the learned advocate appearing for Messrs Trivedi & Gupta submitted that the respondent workmen in Special Civil Applications No.11791 of 2003, 13089 of 2003, 13092 of 2003 and 13094 of 2003, retired between October to December 1999 by accepting Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) while respondent workmen in Special Civil Applications No.13090 of 2003, 13091 of 2003 and 13093 of 2003 retired on reaching the age of superannuation between September to December 1999. He submitted that on acceptance of VRS and/ or on reaching the age of superannuation all these respondents were paid their retirement dues, including 'gratuity' as was payable under the rules. The learned advocate submitted that the controversy involved in these petitions is whether benefits flowing from settlement dated 13.11.2000, entered into between the Union on one hand and the petitioner company on the other on 13.11.2000 will be available to these respondent workmen or not. It is provided in the settlement itself that, 'the company will be paying a fixed lump sum amount per month mentioned in the table, to all the employees, on pro-rata basis of attendance'. It is also provided that, 'effective from 01.04.2000 the said amount will stand merged in the basic wage and new grades will be formed'. These new grades are also provided in the settlement itself. This clause of settlement is in response to demand no.1, "to amend the wage scales". Besides this, the settlement also provides for, "stand alone lump sum amount". This was agreed to be paid, 'with a view to motivate the workers to admit for benchmark of the company's operations as well as for skill development for self, which could also benefit the company as well as in further appreciation of wholehearted cooperation extended by the union and the workers, in restructuring all the workforce at present and during the time to come'. This amount is paid 'one time only' as 'stand alone, lump sum'.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the amounts payable under the settlement dated 13.11.2000, were not to be paid to the present respondents but then later on it was agreed to be paid to the present respondents -- the persons who retired either accepting VRS or on reaching the age of superannuation, during the period in which VRS was in operation. That being so, the settlement as a whole is to be accepted by them. In the settlement it is specifically provided that,