LexM/S. JEEWANLAL (1929) LTD., CALCUTTA versus ITS WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 717 tribunal did not take into account the fact that the 1961 appellant has no reserves and that it had borrowed Garment large loans. We do not see how that would enable the Cleaning Works appellant now to agitate a question which is purely a v. question of fact. Mr. Sen realised the difficulties in Its Workmen his way because, since his client had claimed the pri- . - vilege of s. 21 the Tribunal was fully justified in not Ga1endragadkar J. discussing the figures in its a ward. He, therefore, faintly suggested that we niay remand the case subject to any order as to costs that we may deem fit to make and ask the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in the light of the relevant documents, and he assured us that he would not claim privilege under s. 21 after remand. This r~quest is plainly untenable. If the appellant wanted the tribunal to consider the figures and state its conclusions in the light of the said figures in its award it need not have claimed privilege under s. 21 at the trial. It is now too late to suggest that the privilege be waived and that the matter be con- sidered afresh by the tribunal or by us in the appeal. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the direc- tion given by the Tribunal in regard to the framing of the provident fund scheme. The result is the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. M/S. JEEWANLAL (1929) LTD., CALCUTTA v. ITS WORKMEN (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Gratuity-'Continuous service'-[ nterpre- tation of-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). One Bhanu Bala had joined the appellant's service as a workman in 1929 and resigned in 1957· During this period of bis service he had ren1ained absent from duty without permis- sion or leave for nearly 8 months between February, 1945, to April 3. M/s. ]eewanlal (z929) Ltd., Calcutta v. Its Worknien 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] October, r945. Under an Award made between the company and its workmen a scheme \vas framed wherein the concerned clause was that "on voluntary retirement or resignation of an employee after r5 years continuons service gratuity at the same rate as above." Dispute arose with regard to the question of granting gratuity to Bhanu Bala who claimed the benefit of the said clause and the company denied ihe claim on the ground that the said employee had not been in continuous SErvice for the requisite period because there was a break in his service and that affected the continuity of his employment which made his claim incompetent. The question was as to the interpretation of the term "continuous service" contained in the Award of r95r. Held, that in different context the 'flme word can often have different meanings and the expression "continuous service" would always be a question of fact to be decided on the circum- stances of each case whether or not a particular employee can claim continuity of service for the requisite period. \Vhere the expression "continuous service" was statutorily defined then the definition would prevail; and where an award itself gave a definition of the expression that would bind the parties in dealing with claims arising from the award but where the award did not explain the expression "continuous service" and statutory definitions contained in other Acts were of no material assistance it would ~e necessary to examine the ques- tion on principle and decide what the expression should mean in any given award. "Continuous service", in the context of the scheme of gratuity, postulates the continuation of relationship of master and servant between the employer and employees which could come to an end either by act of parties, i.e., by resignation or termination of service, or by the operation of law; but the continuity of service would not come to an end merely because an employee was absent without obtaining leave; though there would be cases where long unauthorised absence may reasonably give rise to an inference that such service was in- tended to be abandoned by the employee. For the purpose of gratuity mere participation in an illegal strike could not be said to cause breach in the continuity of service though it may be a good cause for its termination, pro- vided the relevant provisions in the Standing Orders in that be- half were complied with. Bttckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Workers of the Bucking- ham a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.