Case: The Brahmachari Research Institute, Calcutta-4 Vs. Their Workmen

1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India in an industrial matter. The appellant is a partnership concern carrying on business in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. There was a gratuity scheme in force in the appellant-concern for a long time. This scheme was modified by an award of the industrial tribunal dated 18-8-1952 (hereinafter called the Award), and since then the modified scheme has been in force. The financial condition of the appellant deteriorated and consequently it was compelled to retrench a number of workmen. It, therefore, applied to the Appellate Tribunal under S. 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, No. XLVIII of 1950, for permission to retrench 89 workmen. The Appellate Tribunal granted permission for retrenchment of 75 workmen only. Consequently, after obtaining such permission, the appellant retrenched the workmen and paid them compensation as provided in S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). Thereupon a dispute was raised by the retrenched workmen through the union in existence in the appellant-concern for gratuity on retrenchment under the award. This dispute was referred to the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, on 23-3-1956, for adjudication in the following termsthe seventy-five retrenched employees (as per attached list) are entitled to gratuity in addition to retrenchmentwas another matter included in the reference, but we are not concerned with that in the present appeal. The Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the retrenched workmen were only entitled to relief as provided under S. 25F of the Act and were not entitled to any gratuity under the Award over and above the compensation payable to them under the Act. Then followed an appeal by the workmen to the Appellate Tribunal held that the workmen were entitled to gratuity under the Award, as gratuity benefit therein was not a retrenchment benefit. The appellant then applied for special leave to appeal, which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

Court's reasoning:
4. It will be seen that the Award is a composite scheme providing for what is termed gratuity therein under three conditions, namely, (I) where there is retrenchment, (ii) where there is termination of service for any reason other than misconduct, and (iii) where there is resignation with the consent of the management.Now, under this Award, it is obvious that this payment on retrenchment though called gratuity is really nothing more nor less than compensation on account of retrenchment. Further it is obvious from the terms of the Award that a retrenched workman could claim gratuity under the Award only on account of retrenchment and could not claim it under the other two conditions therein. In other words, on a fair and reasonable construction of the Award, what the retrenched workman got is only compensation for retrenchment and not any amount by way of gratuity properly sois, therefore, obvious that the Award provides not only for payment on retrenchment but also for payment on termination of service for any reason other than misconduct and on retirement. It is thus a composite scheme; and merely because the payment is called gratuity even where it is payable on account of retrenchment, it cannot be anything other than compensation so far as the part of the Award relating to retrenchment isclearly means that if by any award or contract a workman is entitled to something more as retrenchment compensation than is provided by S. 25F, the workman will be entitled to get that and the provisions of S. 25F will not derogate from that right of the workman, i.e., will not reduce the compensation provided under the award or contract to the level provided under S. 25F.It is obvious that it was not the intention of the legislature that a workman on retrenchment should get compensation twice, i.e., once under the Act and once under the scheme in force providing for retrenchment compensation, by whatever name the payment might have been called. We cannot agree with the Appellate Tribunal that the payment of gratuity in the event of retrenchment has nothing to do with the compensation payable to a workman under S. 25F of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal seems to have been carried away by the word "gratuity" used in the Award and it seems to think that gratuity on retrenchment is something different from compensation on retrenchment. We are of opinion that this is not correct.Whether it is called "gratuity" or "compensation", it is in substance a payment to the workman on account of retrenchment; and if a scheme like the present specifically provides payment for retrenchment as defined in S. 2(oo), we see no justification for compelling that payment twice over, once under S. 25F and again under the scheme in force in the concern. The matter would be different if the scheme in force in any concern or any award provides gratuity which is different in nature from the retrenchment compensation under S. 25F.We also cannot agree with the Appellate Tribunal that this gratuity under the Award in this case is not a retrenchment benefit. We have already analysed the Award above and shown that it deals with three contingencies, and one of them is payment due on retrenchment. On the terms, therefore, of the Award in this case it must be held that gratuity provided therein on retrenchment is nothing more nor less than retrenchment compensation provided under S. 25F of the Act, and the workmen are only entitled to one or the other, whichever is more advantageous to them in view of S. 25J. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the Industrial Tribunal was right in holding that the scheme of the Award in this case providing for gratuity on retrenchment was exactly the same as compensation provided under S. 25F, and as the provisions of S. 25F are better than the provisions of the Award in respect of retrenchment the workmen would be entitled to compensation provided under S. 25F only, and not both under that section and under the Award. The appellant has already paid the compensation provided under S. 25F; the workmen therefore are not entitled to anything more under the Award.