TATA TEA LTD Vs. TATA TEA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE award of the Industrial tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 156 of 1985 has been challenged in this petition. The Reference has been rejected by the Tribunal and the claim of the Petitioners that the clerical staff is entitled to pension has been negated by the Tribunal.

(2.) IN 1948 the James Finlay and Co. (the predecessor of the Respondent Company)introduced a pension scheme for its clerical staff in India. The employees in all the branches of this company were granted benefits under the pension scheme and were informed by a circular dated 2. 3. 1948. The union representing the workers in the James Finlay and Co. raised demands in 1958 for the introduction of a gratuity scheme for all workers, clerical as well as sub staff. As the James Finlay and Co. did not accede to the demand raised, the dispute was referred for adjudication on 15. 1. 1964. An award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal in reference (IT) No. 111 of 1963 known as the bilgrami award. Demand No. 8 pertained to gratuity while demand No. 9 was with respect to pension for subordinate staff. The Tribunal while dealing with these demands has held that the demand for gratuity was unreasonable and, therefore, disallowed it as there was no evidence on record to show that such a practice of paying gratuity prevailed in any comparable concern. Part (b) of this demand for gratuity was that those employees who are entitled to pension in lieu of gratuity should have claimed gratuity instead of pension. The Tribunal held thus :

(3.) THUS, an option was given to the workers to claim gratuity as demanded by them in lieu of the pension. The Tribunal rejected the demand made for retrospective effect for implementation of the gratuity scheme after it was amended in 1. 6. 1962.