Appeal No 264 of 1960
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated October 12 1959 of the Industrial Tribunal Bombay in Reference IT No 81 of 1959
section T Desai Sukumar Ghose and B N Ghose for the appellant
C L Dhudia and K L Hathi for the respondents
April 3
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the award passed by the industrial tribunal in a matter which was referred to it under section 36A2 of the  for interpretation of certain terms of the award made by the said tribunal on April 28 1951 in Reference No 168 of 1950
It appears that a dispute had arisen between the appellant Ms Jeewanlal 1929 Ltd and its workmen in regard to certain demands made by the respondents against the appellant in 1950
The said dispute was referred for adjudication as a result of which an award was passed which inter alia provided for a gratuity scheme
Some provisions of this award have been referred for interpretation in the present reference
On August 31 1957 resignation submitted by the appellant s employee Bhanu Bala was accepted by the appellant
The said employee had joined the appellant s service in 1929 but there was a break in the continuity of his service for nearly 81 months because he had remained absent from duty without permission or leave from
February 14 1945 to the end of October 1945
According to the appellant the said employee was not entitled to any gratuity under the scheme framed by the award
Even so the appellant offered him Rs 1165 and odd on compassionate grounds
The employee was not willing to accept that amount because he claimed that he was entitled to Rs 228250 nP by way of gratuity
The demand thus made by the employee led to an industrial dis pute which was taken by the employee before the 720 First Labour Court at Bombay under section 33C of the Act
The Labour Court entertained the application decided the point in dispute in favour of the employee and directed the appellant to pay him Rs 1781 80 nP as gratuity
The appellant then moved the Bombay High Court for a writ under articles 226 and 227 on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application made before it by the employee
This writ petition was allowed and the order passed by the Labour Court was quashed
It was at this stage that the Government of Bombay referred the question of interpretation of the term continuous service contained in the award of 1951 to the Industrial Court under section 36A1 of the Act
That is how the Industrial Court was possessed of the matter
It has held that the words continuous service I as used by the tribunal when it framed the award in question mean service not broken or interrupted by the termination of the contract of employment by either the employer or the employee or by operation of law
It is this interpretation the correctness of which is challenged by the appellant in its present appeal
The relevant part of the gratuity scheme which was framed by the tribunal in the earlier reference reads thus i On the death of an employee while in the service of the company or on an employee becoming physically or mentally disabled to continue further in service half a months wages for each year of service subject to a maximum of ten months  wages to be paid to him or to his heirs executors assigns or nominees as the case may be
ii On the termination of his service by the company after five years  continuous service Gratuity at the same rate as above
iiiOn voluntary retirement or resignation of an employee after 15 years  continuous service Gratuity at the same rate as above
As we have already seen the employee Bhanu Bala resigned and his resignation was accepted in August 1957
He claimed the benefit of el
iii whereas the 721 appellant contended that the said employee had not been employed in continuous service for the requisite period because there was a break in his service between February 14 1945 to the end of October 1945 and that affected the continuity of his employment which made his claim incompetent under el
iii
This contention has been rejected by the tribunal
Mr section T Desai contends that in interpreting the words continuous service in cl
iii we should compare the provisions of section 49Bl along with the explanation in the Indian Factories Act 1934 XXV of 1934 as well as section 791 along with explanation 1 in the Indian 63 of 1948 prior to its amendment in 1954 and he argues that unauthorised absence from work should normally cause a break in service so that if an employee after uNauthorised absence from work is allowed to resume after such unauthorised absence he should not be entitled to claim continuous service in view of the break in his service
In support of this argument reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Buckingham and Carnatic Co Ltd vs Workers of the Buckingham and Carnatic Co Ltd 1
In that case this Court has held that the continuity of the service of the workers was interrupted by the illegal strike and so they were not entitled to claim holidays with pay under section 49B1 of the Indian 
It would however be noticed that the said decision turned upon the definition of the word strike in section 2q of the  read with the relevant provision of section 49 B of the Indian Factories Act 1934 and there can be no doubt that in a different context the same words can and often have different meanings
As this Court has observed in Budge Budge Municipality vs P It
Mukherjee 2 the same words may mean one thing in one context and another in different context
This is the reason why decisions on the meaning of particular words or collection of words found in other statutes are scarcely of 1  2  198
91 722 much value when we have to deal with a specific statute of our OWn they may be helpful but cannot be taken as guides or precedents
Therefore the meaning attributed to the words continuous service in the context of the Factories Act may not have a material bearing in deciding the point in the present appeal
The same comment falls to be made in regard to the argument based on the definition of the expression continuous service contained in section 2eee of the 
The said section provides that continuous service means uninterrupted service and includes service which may be interrupted merely on account  of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal or a lockout or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workmen
This definition is undoubtedly relevant in dealing with the question of continuous service by reference to the provisions of Industrial Disputes  Act but its operation cannot be automatically extended in dealing with an interpretation of the words continuous service in an award made in an industrial dispute unless the context in which the expression is used in the award justifies it
In other words the expression continuous service may be statutorily defined in which case the definition will prevail
An award using the said expression may itself give a definition of that expression and that will bind parties in dealing with claims arising from the award
Where however the award does not explain the said expression and statutory definitions contained in other Acts are of no material assistance it would be necessary to examine the question on principle and decide what the expression should mean in any given award  and that is precisely what the tribunal had to do in the present case
Continuous service in the context of the scheme of gratuity framed by the tribunal in the earlier reference postulates the continuance of the relationship of master and servant between the employer and his employees
If the servant resigns his employment service automatically comes to an end
If the employer terminates the service of his employee that 723 again brings the continuity of service to an end
If the service of an employee is brought to an end by the operation of any law that again is another instance where the continuance is disrupted but it is difficult to hold that merely because an employee is absent without obtaining leave that itself would bring to an end the continuity of his service
Similarly participation in an illegal strike which may incur the punishment of dismissal may not by itself bring to an end the relationship of master and ser vant
It may be a good cause for the termination of service provided of course the relevant provisions in the standing orders in that behalf are complied with but mere participation in an illegal strike cannot be said to cause breach in continuity for the purposes of gratuity
On the other hand if an employee continues to be absent from duty without obtaining leave and in an unauthorised manner for such a long period of time that an inference may reasonably be drawn from such absence that by his absence he has aban doned service then such long unauthorised absence may legitimately be held to cause a break in the continuity of service
It would thus always be a question of fact to be decided on the circumstances of each case whether or not a particular employee can claim continuity of service for the requisite period or not
In our opinion therefore the view taken by the tribunal is substantially right though we would like to make it clear that in addition to the cases where according to the tribunal continuity of service would come to an end there would be the class of cases where long unauthorised absence may reasonably give rise to an inference that such service is intended to be abandoned by the employee
With this modification we confirm the award and dismiss the appeal
There would be no order as to costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Section 201 of the XXVII of 1953 read with the proviso is a perfectly reasonable provision and in the interest of the employees and it is not correct to say that it can apply only to the direct recruits of the existing air 812 companies and not at all to loaned employees working under them
The two conditions of its applications are i that the officer or employee was employed by the existing air company on July 1 1952 and ii that he was still in its employment on August 1 1953 the appointed day
In the instant case where the appellants who had been recruited by the Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd and on purchase by it of the Air Services of India Ltd loaned to the latter and were working under its direction and control on and between the said dates and being paid by it Held that in law they were the employees of the Air Ser vices of India from the appointed day notwithstanding the existence of certain special features of their employment and as such governed by section 201 of the Act and since they did not exercise the option given to them under the proviso they became employees of the Corporation established under the Act and ceased to have any rights against the original employers
Nokes vs Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd 1940 AC 1014 considered