In the result an award was made directing appropriate revision of the scheme of gratuity.
The appellate tribunal saw numberreason to interfere with the award made by the tribunal.
Against this award the appellant preferred an appeal, and on its behalf the same companytentions were raised and with the same result.
It is against this part of the award that the present appeal has been preferred.
It is true that the modification proposed by the appellant refers to the gratuity payable to the workmen under any award for the time being in force it does number refer in terms to retrenchment companypensation.
Certain alterations were suggested by the respondents in the said scheme some of which were accepted by the tribunal.
It appears that two modifications were suggested by the appellant in the current gratuity rules.
B. Gajendragadkar, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between M s. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd., hereinafter called the appellant and its workmen hereinafter called the respondents which was referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal.
The tribunal companysidered the objections raised by the appellant against the scheme of gratuity which was then in force and held that there was numbersubstance in them.
