JEEWANLAL 1929 LTD Vs. JEEWANLAL EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been referred to me under Sub-section (1) of S. 36A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), for interpretation of certain terms of my award dated 28 April, 1951 in Reference (I.T.) No. 158 of 1950 as in the opinion of Government a difficulty has arisen as to the interpretation of the term "continuous service" occurring in the above decision. The directions given by me in respect of gratuity which require interpretation are as follows :-

(2.) A copy of the letter dated 26 February, 1959, from Jeewanlal Employees' Union, Bombay, requesting Government to refer the above question for my interpretation and explaining as to how the present dispute arose is on the record of these proceedings. The question involved is one of interpretation of the phrase "continuous service" used in Clause (ii) and (iii) of the gratuity scheme reproduced above. The company has filed its written statement wherein it is inter alia stated that the words "continuous service" defined under S. 2(eee) of the Industrial Disputes Act apply to the interpretation occurring in the aforesaid award; that the unauthorized absence of employees is meant to be an interruption of continuous service of such employees and such employees would not be entitled to be paid gratuity. The company has also submitted that the words "continuous service" are not new in industrial law and the said words were already there in the Factories Act when the said award was made and they were also the subject-matter of interpretation and decision of the tribunals, courts, as also the Supreme Court and the accepted well-established rule is that even unauthorized leave for one day or absence from work due to strike, etc., would interrupt service and their service could not be continuous service. The company has further submitted that in the case of the company the words "continuous service" have all along been understood both by the company and its employees not only in the sense that the service was formally terminated by notice or otherwise but in the sense that there was interruption or breach in the continuous service due to absence without leave. At the hearing the company relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Buckingham and Carnatic Company, Ltd. v. Their workmen [1953 - I L.L.J. 181]. The union has submitted that the said decision is based upon the construction of a particular definition given of the words "continuous service" as used in the Factories Act and should therefore be ignored. It has also relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Budge Budge Municipality v. P. R. Mukherjee and others [1953 - I L.L.J. 195 at 198], wherein their lordships have observed :

(3.) This award may be communicated to Government.