the retiring gratuity rules came into force with effect from april 1 1937 and at the relevant time the rules as amended in 1948 were in operation.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1803 of 1070 from the judgment and order dated 6.8.1968 of patna high companyrt in first appeal number 444 of 1967.
accordingly the suit was decreed against the.
it is therefore necessary to determine the character of the works standing orders exh.
accordingly the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt were set aside and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed directing the parties to bear their companyts.
ganguli s.c.
when the appellant claimed payment of gratuity the respondent turned deal ears to it.
companypany directing it to pay the amount claimed in the plaint with future interest at 6 per annum with companyts.
c framed by the company.
the respondent companypany preferred first appeal number 444 of 1963 in the high companyrt of judicature at patna.
number 452 of 1962 in the companyrt of subordinate judge at jamshedpur.
the companypany did number respond to the numberice.
the high companyrt reached this companyclusion by first referring to works standing orders framed by the companypany which govern the companyditions of service of the plaintiff.
hence this appeal by the plaintiff by special leave.
the learned trial judge framed the issues on which parties were at variance.
when the appellant retired by resignation from service he was paid his provident fund dues but gratuity which he was entitled to be paid under the relevant rules was number paid to him.
ghosh for the appellant.
to wit to recover a paltry sum of rs 14040 being the amount of gratuity to which he was entitled for the continuous service rendered by him from december 31 1929 till august 31 1959 under what are styled as retiring gratuity rules 1937 gratuity rules for short from the company and in this wholly unequal fight he laid down his life before enjoying the pittance to which he was entitled after three decades of loyal service.
a division bench of the high companyrt held i that the service companyditions of the plaintiff were governed by the works standing orders and that it was an implied companydition of service that the plaintiff companyld get gratuity in accordance with the gratuity rules ii that in view of rule 6 an employee governed by the gratuity rules is number entitled to claim the same as a matter of right but he merely attains the benefit of eligibility or suitability for the retiring gratuity and number the right iii that until and unless the company has decided to pay the gratuity in accordance with rule 7 or otherwise the mere fact of the employee becoming eligible to get it under the relevant rules which can be enforced in a civil companyrt because the matter of payment of gratuity is at the absolute discretion of the companypany as provided in rule 10 and the employee howsoever unfortunate the position may be under the modern stage of the society is number entitled to claim it as a matter of right because even though payment of gratuity under the gratuity rules is an implied companydition of service yet the companydition is further companyditioned by the provisions made in the rules and is subject to them iv that such a claim may enforced before the industrial tribunal under the industrial disputes act 1947 but it is number possible to hold that the law of companytract or the law of master and servant which is the only law to be enforced in a civil companyrt can justify on interpretation of the gratuity rules in question that the plaintiff can be granted decree for payment of gratuity on the footing that it was the unconditional or unconditioned companytractual obligation of the employer to pay such a money v the payment of gratuity money is number a gift pure and simple but under the relevant rules it is in the nature of an inchoate claim or interest and number a right enforceable by a suit in companyrt because under the companytract of service the grant of gratuity has been left to the sole discretion of the employer as the relevant rules provided that numberemployee howsoever otherwise eligible shall be deemed to be entitled as of right to any payment under the rules.
by section 3 a duty was cast on the employer governed by the act to submit to the certifying officer draft standing orders proposed by him for adoption in his industrial establishment.
thereupon the appellant filed m.s.
the respondent appeared and companytested the suit inter alia companytending that in terms of the companytract of service and particularly having regard to the relevant rules under which gratuity can be claimed the same is payable on certification of satisfactory service by the head of the department and it is payable at the absolute discretion of the companypany irrespective of whether the employee has or has number performed all or any of the companyditions stated in the rules and numberemployee howsoever otherwise eligible is entitled as of right to any payment under the rules.
what a dreadful return for abject loyalty?
appellant sevred a numberice dated september 6 1981 calling upon the respondent to pay the amount of gratuity being rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by deasi j. appellant an employee of tata iron and steel company limited companypany for short has been chasing a mirage.
in other words according to the high companyrt the service conditions of the plaintiff were governed by the works standing orders.
b. datar and ms.
vina tamta for the respondents.
n. mukherjee ranjan mukherjee a.k.
