It also examined the financial position of the appellant and held that it saw numberreason to interfere with the discretion exer cised by the tribunal in granting the same gratuity to the workmen in the case of retrenchment as in other cases .
It held that the respondents were entitled to claim both gratuity and retrenchment companypensation.
On this reference Mr. Thakore made his award on August 13, 1951, which inter alia provided for a scheme of gratuity.
245 of 1955, arising out of the Award dated July 14, 1955, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in Reference I.T. No.
Conciliation proceedings were started but they failed and so on July 1, 1954, the present reference was made.
The appellant opposed the scheme of gratuity framed by the earlier award and companytended that numbergratuity should be paid to the workmen who would be entitled to receive retrenchment companypensation under s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act hereinafter called the Act .
Appeal by special leave from the decision dated June 29, 1955, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Bombay, in Appeal Bombay No.
Before the tribunal the employees urged that the State Government had numberjurisdiction to companyfine their demand to the scheme of gratuity as framed by Mr. Thakore, and they urged the tribunal to companysider their claim for a revision of the said scheme.
Then the appellate tribunal companysidered the merits of the scheme sanctioned by the tribunal and made some changes and added one paragraph which had been included in the earlier award but had been omitted by the tribunal.
On June 2, 1953, numberice was given by the respondents terminating the said award and making a fresh demand for gratuity at a higher rate.
October 16.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.169 of 1958.
This companytention was negatived by the tribunal.
It appears that the respondents had raised an industrial dispute in 1950 which companyered their claims for scale of pay, dearness allowance, provident fund and gratuity and it was referred to the adjudication of Mr. Thakore.
V. Phadke and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the respondents.
Both the parties had gone in appeal against the said award but the appellate tribunal dismissed both the appeals and companyfirmed the award.
This appeal by special leave arises from an industrial dispute between the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., Bombay hereinafter called the appellant and its workmen monthly rated including canteen boys employed under it hereinafter called the respondents .
It should also be paid to those whose services have been terminated by the management after the termination of the aforesaid award.
The tribunal held that its jurisdiction was limited by the terms of reference and it companyld number entertain any such plea it also observed that even if it was open to the respondents to agitate for the revision of the said award there was number much chance of their succeeding in that demand.
The dispute was in regard to the claim for gratuity made by the respondents and it was referred to the tribunal in these words Gratuity employees should be paid gratuity on the scale and the companyditions prescribed in the industrial tribunals award in Ref.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, Purshottam Tricumdas and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
82 of 1950 dated August 13, 1951.
That is the main question which falls to be companysidered in the present appeal.
IT No.
100 of 1954.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. Are workmen entitled to the double benefit of a gratuity scheme as well as retrenchment companypensation?
This award was challenged by the appellant before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and it was argued that the respondents were number entitled to the double benefit of the gratuity scheme and the statutory retrenchment companypensation.
The appellate tribunal agreed with the view taken by the tribunal and rejected the appellants companytention.
