Case: Dunlop Rubber Company (India) Limited Vs. The Workmen (Clerical Staff) &amp; Others

1. These two appeals by special leave arise out of two references made by the Government of Bombay in connection with a dispute between the appellant-company and two sets of its workmen, namely, clerical staff and staff other than clerical. The clerical staff had raised four questions which were referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay for adjudication. Of these, only two points survive in the present appeal, namely, retirement age and gratuity. The non-clerical staff had raised two questions of which only one relating to gratuity arises before us.2. It appears that the appellant-company is an all-India concern but the major part of its business is concentrated in Calcutta. The number of non-clerical staff outside Calcutta is very small as compared to the non-clerical staff in Calcutta while the clerical staff outside Calcutta is much less than the clerical staff in Calcutta. The company had a gratuity scheme in force which applied to both clerical and non-clerical staff, though there were differences in the scale of payment depending upon whether the basic salary drawn by workmen-other than operatives was more than Rs. 100 or less. In case of operatives, there was a uniform scale equal to the scale for workmen other than operatives drawing less than Rs. 100 or less. In case of operatives, there was a uniform scale equal to the scale for workmen other than operatives drawing less than Rs. 100 per mensem. The clerical and non-clerical staff in Bombay raised disputes and their main contention was that the scale fixed by the scheme in force was low and should be raised. As for the retirement age, the clerical staff claimed that it should be raised from 55 years to 60.3. The case of the appellant-company before the tribunal was that as the large majority of the staff both clerical and non-clerical was in Calcutta and as the gratuity scheme and the retirement age were enforced by virtue of an agreement arrived at between the appellant-company and its workmen both clerical and others in Calcutta who are a large majority of its total workmen, they should not be changed at the instance of a small minority of workmen both clerical and others in Bombay. The tribunal did not accept this contention and raised the age of retirement from 55 yearsIt also made changes in the gratuity scheme by which the scale was raised and made uniform both for clerical staff and others. Thereupon the appellant applied for and obtained special leave from this Court; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

Reasoning:
5. There is nodoubt that in the case of an all-India concern it would be advisable to have uniform conditions of service throughout India and if uniform conditions prevail in any such concern they should not be lightly changed.Therefore, strictly speaking, it cannot be said in this case that there was a final agreement in force with respect to these two matters between the appellant and large majority of its workmen in September 1958 when the Bombay Tribunal gave its award. In any case the Bombay Tribunal was bound to go into the merits of the matter with respect to these two items, namely, retirement age and gratuity, keeping in mind the all-India character of the concern and the previous agreement of 1956, and this is what the tribunal has actuallythese circumstances if the tribunal thought that it would be fair to fix 60 years as the age of retirement for clerical staff in spite of the fact that in the agreement of 1956 the retirement age was fixed at 55 years, it cannot be said that the tribunals order was not in accord with the prevailing conditions in many concerns in that region. In these circumstances we are of opinion that no. interference is called for in thisIt appears therefore from the gratuity scheme finally sanctioned by the tribunal that it removed those features from the scheme in force in the appellant-company which were unusual and unfair and not in consonance with the prevailing conditions for such schemes in that region. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the tribunal was not bound merely because this is an all-India concern to refrain from altering the gratuity scheme which in its opinion had certain unusual features and was not in accord with the prevailing conditions in that region. The appellants contention therefore on this head also fails.