NATIONAL UMBRELLA FACTORY Vs. SHARVA SHARMIK SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution by National Umbrella Factory for setting aside two awards passed by an industrial tribunal on references under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner is a firm engaged in the assembly of umbrellas. Till recently the concern belonged to a well-known firm of long standing called Ebrahim Currim & Sons. On account of disputes between the partners of Ebrahim Currim & Sons, a suit for the dissolution of the partnership was filed on the Original Side of this Court in 1963. During the pendency of the suit, the concern was closed for about four months from 20 November, 1963. Some of the partners of Ebrahim Currim & Sons then formed the present petitioner-firm, National Umbrella Factory, and by a consent order the petitioner-firm took over the business of Ebrahim Currim & Sons as a going concern on 11 April, 1964. In May 1964, the workmen who claimed to be the employees of the petitioner-firm, and who were represented by the last respondent-trade union, raised an industrial dispute in regard to wages, dearness allowance, gratuity and other demands. The demands of the workmen were referred by the State Government for the decision of the industrial tribunal, respondent 2, by two separate references, one relating to the demand for gratuity and the other to the remaining demands. The awards of the tribunal on the demand for gratuity is challenged in Special Civil Application No. 1979 of 1966, and the award relating to the other demands is challenged in Special Civil Application No. 1994 of 1966.

(2.) The award on the demand for gratuity allows to each workman an amount of gratuity equivalent to twenty days' consolidated wages for every year of service subject to a maximum of fifteen months' wages. In this connection, the tribunal has made the following observations in its award :

(3.) Now Sri Shetye for the petitioner-firm argued that quite a large number of workers employed in the concern are time-rated and not piece-rated, that they are continuously employed all the year round and that the considerations mentioned by the tribunal for granting an amount of gratuity equivalent to twenty days' consolidated wages for every year of service do not apply in their case. In view of the fact that piece-rated workers are employed for only a part of the year and that time-rated workers are employed all the year round, the amount of gratuity payable to the two categories of workmen should not have been fixed, according to Sri Shetye, at a uniform rate. Sri Kulkarni for respondent 1 union did not dispute that the time-rated workers in the concern are employed throughout the year. Sri Kulkarni further told us that contrary to what is stated in the award, a majority of the workers in the concern may be time-rated and not piece-rated. That being so, it appears to us that the tribunal was in error in not making different provisions for the amount of gratuity payable to piece-rated and time-rated workers. We are, however, unable to hold that this is an error of law and that it can be corrected in a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution. We would have, therefore, been required to reject this contention of Sri Shetye. At our suggestion, however, Sri Kulkarni fairly conceded that the award may be modified so as to provide that the amount of gratuity payable to time-rated workers shall be equivalent to fifteen days' consolidated wages for every year of service. On the basis of this concession, we shall direct that the award be modified in the above manner.