BHARAT TEXTILE ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. N A ATHALVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications are between the same parties. The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 38 of 1964 are a partnership firm doing the business of engraving textile designs on copper rolls used for textile printing. A dispute between them and their workmen the 2nd respondent was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal made an award on 25th September 1963. Against the Award the employers have filed special civil application No. 38 of 1964 while the Union has filed the other application No. 199 of 1964.

(2.) MR. Shah, who appears on behalf of the petitioners in the first application, has raised three points. The Tribunal has directed the payment of gratuity at the rate of 7 days' wages for each completed year of service, to workmen who had completed seven years' continuous service. The wages paid by the petitioners are consolidated wages Mr. Shah has contended that gratuity is ordinarily awarded on the basis of the basic wages of a worker and dearness allowance is not ordinarily taken into consideration for the purpose. He has, therefore, contended that the Tribunal was wrong in directing that gratuity should be paid at the rate of 7 days' wages for each completed year of service Paragraph 18 of the Award shows that the Tribunal was conscious of the fact that the wages which were being paid to the workmen were consolidated wages. After taking into consideration this fact it has directed the payment of gratuity at the rate of 7 days' wages for each completed year of service. As the Tribunal has already taken this factor into consideration in determining the amount of gratuity payable, we do not think that we can interfere with the Award on this ground.

(3.) IN paragraph 28 the Tribunal has directed that the management shall pay bonus to workers for the year 1961 at the rate of 1/16th annual basic earning excluding overtime wages and dearness allowance, on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Award. No dearness allowance was actually being paid to the workers. This direction of the Tribunal, therefore, requires modification. Since we are sending back the matter on another ground, we direct that having regard to the fact that consolidated wages were being paid to the workers, the above direction that dearness allowance should be excluded from the basic earnings should be suitably modified.