TATA CHEMICALS LTD Vs. CHHOTALAL JAMNADAS SAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of seven appeals are preferred from a common judgment of the learned Single Judge in seven petitions of the appellants wherein the concurrent finding in favour of the workmen upholding the grant of additional amount of gratuity ranging from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.14,000/- were challenged.

(2.) The facts are very simple and in a narrow compass. The respondent workmen have retired by a golden handshake under the voluntary retirement scheme of the company or upon reaching the age of superannuation during the period between September 1999 to December 1999. The appellant company entered into a settlement with the trade union of workmen on 13.11.2000 wherein, as regards the first demand to amend the wage scales, conditions were recorded in Clauses (A), (B), (C) and (D). Under the caption "TO AMEND THE WAGE SCALES" in the aforesaid settlement, it was agreed in the first Clause (A) that from 1.1.1999 a lump-sum amount per month was to be paid on pro-rata basis of attendance and such increase in wages was to be merged with the basic wage and new grades with effect from 1.4.2000. There is another clause agreeing upon grant of special amount shown under Clause (C) as "Stand Alone Lump-sum amount". Specifically below that Clause (C), it is mentioned as under:-

(3.) Upon application for additional amount of gratuity being filed before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short "the Act"), the authority took the view that the additional amount agreed to be paid with retrospective effect by the aforesaid settlement was part of the wages and what was expressly excluded from the calculation of gratuity was "stand alone lump-sum amount" under Clause (C) under Demand No.1 in the settlement. It was also observed that the Act is a welfare legislation specifically covering the subject of payment of gratuity and any agreement or instrument or even statutory provision inconsistent with the provisions of the Act cannot have a binding effect. The applications of all the respondents were allowed on that basis. The appellants having preferred appeals therefrom, they were also dismissed by an elaborate judgment observing that the additional payments of lump-sum amount was expressly in respect of the services rendered and, therefore, such amounts were part of "wages" which, according to the definition contained in section 2 (s) of the Act, means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave and which are paid or are payable to him.