INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (BOMBAY) (PVT.) LTD. & ANR. versus INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (BOMBAY) EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 473 · Decided: 10-03-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
) 
• 
• 
• 
473 
INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (BOMB/\ YJ (PVT.) LrD. & 
A 
ANR. 
v. 
INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (BOMBAY) EMPLOYEES 
UNION & ORS . 
March 10, 1978 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-fnterjerencc by Supreme Court 011 the 
merits in an appeal against an industrial award--Construction of the language 
of a reference-Whether the reference in the instant 
~ase, included the pta-
nouncernent upon gratuity" to non-journalists by the Tnbunal. 
The Central Government rnrde a reference to the Industrial Tribunal in the 
following terms : 
"\Vhelher the recommendations of the \Vage Board for non-journali'it 
employees as accepted by Government by its Resolution No. \VB-171 7 .' 
67, dated the 18th Noven1ber, 1967, are ·unfair or unreasonable and 1f 
so, what modifications ~re reguired th~rein to ensure a .fair and j_ust wage 
structure for the non-iournahsts, having due regard to the paying capa-
city of the respective newspaper establishment, the e_mployer's agreement 
and the emoluments of employees engaged in comparable cstablish1nents." 
The National Tribunal gave an award covering many topics including gratuity. 
All the ne\vspaper establishments, but one namely, the 
appellant, had tTuflen 
in line and left the award unChallenged. The appellant, however, challenged the 
very jurisdiction of the Tribunal to pronounce upon "gratuity", on the ground 
that it falls outside the reference itself. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Industrial jurispn1dence is not static, rigid or textually cold, but 
dynamic, burgeoning and warm with life. 
It answers in en1phatic negative the 
biblical interrogation; "what man is there of you, who if his son ask bread, 
will give him a stone ?" The Industrial Tribunal of India in areas unoccupied 
by precise black letter la.w, go by the Constitutional mandate of ~ocial justice 
in the claims of the 'little people'. 
[475 D-E] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
2. It is not as if the Supreme Court of India shall not go back upon what 
F 
was throughout understood by all before the Tribunal. The jurisdictional justifi-
cation must be found in the Refere'Ilce itself, not it;l_ 
the 
brooding, 
perhaps 
blundering, consciousness of litigants, 
liberality, not 1pendantry, 
~111iding tht 
construction of _the language of the reference. [ 476 B~C] 
Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Workers and Staff [1963] 3 ~CR 
p. 540@ 555 followed. 
3. "fhis Court lends no countenance 'to submission on the merits in the 
G 
absence o fftagrant violation of principles, gross travesty of justice and like 
extreme grounds, especially when the appeal is against an Award by an I•Jdus-
tial Tribunal. 
[481 B-C] 
4. 'Gratuity' and its quantum, like other retirement benefits, has a bearing 
on the wage structure and vice versa. It is true that the wage strL1ctur(: 1clates 
to the en1oluments during service, while gratuity is a terminal benefit or, rather, 
a retirement benefit. Although these two fall i'!lto different compartment<; they 
are inter-connected. A heavy wage scale may hcNe same impact on the gratuity 
H 
rate and a large .provision for gratuity may have its retroactive effect upon the 
wage structure. It is composite equity writ on the economic life of the "\\·orker. 
[47"1 G-H, 478 Al 
474 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
In the instaint case : ·-
B 
5. (a) It is proved beyond re<>aonab!e doubt that the parties 0\1 both sides, 
at the level of pleadings, at the stage of arguments and in the rival process of 
contest, desiderated a decision ot.1 a gratuity scheme for non-journalists. Item 1 
of the Schedule of the Reference, the proceedings before the Tribunal and the 
reasooing in the Award cc\1verge to the only conclusion reasonably a.vailable 
that the gratuity scheme for non-journalist workmen was 
covered 
by 
the 
reference. 
r478 H, 480 E-F, 481 A] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(b) The Tribunal was well within its 
jurisdiction in deciding on 'g:ratutty'. 
The Wage Board has made recommendations on gratuity (paragra.ph 4.28). 
Indeed, item 2 of the reference to the Wage Board which covers non-journalist 
employees involves gratuity. The management in it." written statement before 
the Tribunal has contended that there was no justification for the Wage Board 
to apply the gratuity scheme as applicable to working journalists, to all the non-
journalist employees. 
All these lead to the only cc•.1clusion that the 5cheme of 
gratuity recon1mended by 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.