E I D PARRY LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is for certiorari to quash the award of the 1st defendant-Industrial Tribunal, made in Industrial Dispute 29 of 1972, dated 11th December, 1972. The snort facts are as follows :

(2.) BY G. O. Rt. No. 1508 dated 17th June, 1972, the Government of Tamil Nadu referred for adjudication two issues between the workmen and the management of H. I. D. Parry Ltd. , Ranipet. Those two issues are:

(3.) BEFORE me Thiru M. R. Narayana-swami, appearing for the writ petitioner?the management E. I D. Parry Ltd. , would contend as follows: Reference by the Government itself is incompetent because the matters relating to gratuity were covered by three settlements?m 3 to M 5 which came into effect on 1st April, 1968, and was to be operative for a period of five years and that as the matter was covered by these settlements it would not be open to the workmen to opt or to come out of the settlement and ask for pension instead of gratuity. Properly speaking it is that scheme under the settlement which should govern the rights of the parties. In support of this, the learned Counsel relies on the decisions in Bangalore Wonlen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. V. Their Workmen, (1967) 33 F. J. R. 254 and Tungahhadra Industries Ltd. v. Their Workman, (1973) 43 F. J. R. 543. The next contention is the Payment of Gratuity Act (Central Act No. 39 of 1972), which came into effect on 16th September, 1972, and by reason of Sections 4, 5 and 14 it would not be possible for the workmen to ask for gratuity other than what is provided for under the Act Even Section 5 mentions gratuity or pen sionary benefits. If it was the case of the workmen that the gratuity that was available under the settlements M 3 to M 5 were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, in view of the over-riding effect of S 14, it should be by way of a separate dispute. But this is not the case here. The third contention is that merely because for the clerical staff pensionary benefits were available under Ext. M 7, it would not straightaway mean the workmen concerned in the writ petition would also be entitled to such claim. Even assuming that they would be entitled to such benefits, the Tribunal instead of framing a scheme in accordance with M 7 has chosen to frame a scheme in an arbitrary fashion while at the same time purporting to base its conclusion on M 7.