M/S. MULLER & PHIPPS (INDJA) LTD. versus K. C. SUD

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 508 · Decided: 11-04-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1960 
111. r~ : Sant Rnm 
Sit1ha C. J 
1960 
April Tl. 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ll960J 
cng·aging other a<h·ocates, 
h:1s not been 
accepted b)' 
the Registrar. 
It appears to have been the case that 
not being a registered clerk, he could not do any job 
perr111.ss1hle 
for such a 
clerk. 
N:1t11rally, 
therefore, 
he \\'as found .wandering about in the corridors in cir-
c11m.stanccs which led to the gem1ine belief th:1t he had 
no other business in Court· than 
that of touting· for 
such legal practitioners as would engage him for that 
nefarious activitv. 
\\le cannot, 
therefore, accede to 
the argument that the appellant has been a l'ictim o[ 
mere 
.suspicion. 
The nidence 
of general 
repute 
ag·a1nst hin1, in our opinion, 
'vas suA.icient: to brand 
him as a "!Out". 
· 
It follows 
that there is no 
merit in this appeal, 
which is hereby dismissed. 
AfJfJeal dismissed. 
M/S. MULLER Re PHIPPS (INDJA) LTD. 
v. 
K. C. SUD 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. C. DAs 
GUPTA, J.J.) 
Industrial Dispute-Scheme for 
gratuity-Claim for gratuity 
by workmen under the scheme in addition to retrenchment com-
pensation-If must depend on the construction of the scheme-
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), s. 25F. 
The Labour Court, Delhi, made an award framing gratuity 
scheme, one of the 
provisions being that 
on the termination of 
service by the company, the workmen shall be entitled to half a 
month's basic salary or wage for each year of completed service as 
gratuity. 
The respondent 
who was 
retrenched 
had received 
compensation under s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act made 
an application under s. 33C of the 
Act claiming the gratuity in 
accordance with the 
sche1ne in addition to the 
retrenchment 
compensation already 
received. 
The contention of the appellant 
was that 
the gratuity 
which the 
respondent claims 
was in 
essence the same thing as compensation for the retrenchment and 
to allow gratuity in addition to the retrenchment compensation 
under s. 25F would be to give double benefit for the same eYent, 
i.e., .retrenchment: 
_ 
Held, that whether retrenched workmen can claim the benefit 
of a gratuity scheme in addition to the retrenchment compen-
sation would depend on the construction of the material terms of 
' -
• 
3 S.C.R.· 
SUPREME COURT 'REPORTS 
509 
the scheme considered in the light of s. 25F of· the Industrial Dis-
putes Act, 1947. The reasonable 
conclusion .from 
the present 
scheme is that the gratuity that could be daimed . under the award 
was intended to be in addition to the retrcnchmenf compensation 
and not in lieu thereof. 
The 
respondent was 
entitled to such 
gratuity even thoug!i he had already received payment of compen-
sation for retrenchment in 
accordance with the 
provisions of 
s .. 25F of the Act. 
Indian Hume Pipe Co. v. Its Workman, [19601 2 S.C.R. 32, 
followed. 
. 
Bramachari Research Institute v. Its· Workme~, [1~6o] 2 S.C.R. 
45, referred to.· 
·· • 
' 
: · · 
· 
CrvrL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: 
Civil •Appeal No . 
. 147 of 1960. 
· 
· 
Appeal by special 
leave from the 
d~cision dated · 
May 18; 1959, of the Labotir Court, Delhi, in L.C.A. 
No. 53/1959. 
'. 
. 
Pnrshottam Tricwiidas, S. N. Andley, ]. . B. Dada-
chanji and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellrtnts. 
· 
Sulwmar Chose, for the respondent. 
;· 
1960. April 11. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
· 
' 
DAs GuPTA, J.-This appeal is against an order of 
the Judge, Labour Court, Delhi, in an application under 
s. 33C of. the Industrial Disputes Act by the respondent, 
K. C. Sud, by which the' ~Otlft ·computed the amount 
fh1e to the petitioner 
by way of ' g-ratuity under an 
award to be Rs. 80.42 np. only. 
Sud;·who was a work-
man of the appellant company, M /s. Muller & Phipps 
(India) Ltd. was retrenched by the company on January 
31, 1958. 
At that time a lefere11ce on the question of 
introduction of a gratu_ity' scheme for the workmen of 
the company was pending before the Industrial Tri-
bunal. 
An application by Sud against this order of 
retrenchment under s. 33A failed. In the reference 
above-mentioned the Court. made an ·award framing a 
gratuity scheme in th~_following terms:-
.. 
"On the death of an employee while in t~e service 
of the company, or on· his becoming. physically m 
mentally incapable of further service, half a !nonth's 
basic salary or wages for each year of continuous 
service shall be paid to the disabled employees, or 
if he h:1~ died, to his he'irs or· legal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.