MANAGEMENT OF TOURNAMULLA ESTATE versus WORKMEN

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 26-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

762 
MANAGEMENT OF TOURNAMULLA ESTATE 
v. 
WORKMEN 
March 26, 1973 
[A. N. GROVER, S. N. DwlVEDI AND C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM, JJ.1 
ia.bour Law-Gratuity Sclienie-Wprkmen clisn1issed for 111isconduc1-
Gratui1y whethtr can be forfeitecl. 
Clause ( 4) of the Scheme of gratuitty 
applicable to the appellant 
Estate provided that a dispute regarding a claim for payment c!l gratuity 
of a workman who had been dismissed for misconduct shall be referred 
to the Labour Court for decision. One of workmen of the appellant was 
charge-sheeted in respect of riotous and disorderly behaviour for having 
assaulted a tea-maker inside the factory of the appellant. A departmental 
enquiry was held and being found guilty of mi.sconduct he was dismissed. 
As a dispute arose about the payment of gratuity the matter was referred 
to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court it was not disputed that 
the dismissal o'f the workman was on account of .misconduct consisting of 
riotous and disorderly behaviour and assaulting a tea.maker: The Labour 
Court, relying upon the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Sura; 
Prakash Kapur, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 711 decided the question in favour of 
the workman. Appeal by special leave, was filed in this Court. Allowing 
the appeal, 
HELD : According to the decision of this Court in the Delhi Cloth 
Mills case misconduct could be of three kinds, (I) technical misconduct 
which leaves no trial of indiscipline; 
(2) 
mis.conduct resulting in 
damage to the employer's property which might be compensated by forfei· 
ture of gratuity or a part thereof, and ( 3) serious misconduct such a• 
acts of violence against the management or other employees or disorderly 
behaviour in or near the place of the employmen4 which though 
not 
directly causing damage is conJucive to. grave indiscipline. 
The first 
should involve no forfeiture, 
the second may involve forfeiture of an 
amount equal to· the loss directly suffered by the employer in consequence 
of the misconduct, and the third will entail forfeiture of the gratuity pay-
able to the workman. 
In other words, according to this deci5ion, if a 
workman is guilty of a serious misconduct of the third category, then 
his gratuity can be forfeited in its entirety. 
[7640] 
The decision in the Delhi Cloth Mills as applicable to the facts af 
the present case and the appeal must accordingly be allowed. 
Stale of Punjab v. Sura; Parkasli Kapur, etc., [1962] 2 S.C.R. 711 
applied. 
Dtl/Ii Cloth & General Mi!ls Co. Ltd. v. Workmen and Others, etr:. 
[1969) 2 S.C.R. 307, referred to. 
(ii) The contention that the Labour Court did not apply its mind to 
the nature and degree c!f the misconduct committed and therefore the 
matter should be remitted to that court for decision iri accordance with 
B 
c 
D 
f 
G 
Jaw, could not be accepted because the facts were not in dispute before 
H 
the Labour Court. 
(7650] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 698 of 
1968. 
' 
TOURNAMULLA ESTATE v. WORKMEN (Gro11er, J,) 
763 
A 
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated August I 0. 
1'967 of the Labour Court, 
(Kerala State), Quilon, Camp Dt 
Calicut, in Industrial Dispute No. 70 of 1965 published in the 
Kerala Govt. Gazette No. 39 dated 3-10-67. 
G. B. Pai, Bhuvanesh Kumari and O. C. Mathur, for the appe]. 
lant. 
B 
A. S. Nambiyar, for the resJ)Ondent. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GROVER, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from an award 
of th~ Labour Court, Quilon (Kerala State) 
The point before us is simple. The workman concerned was 
charge-sheeted in respect of riotous and disorderly behaviour for 
having assaulted a tea maker Shri U. M. Abdul Kadar on May 
29, 1965, inside the factory. A departmental enquiry was held 
wherein, it is said, he was given every opportunity to fully parti-
cipate. He was found guilty of misconduct by the domestic 
tribunal and was accordingly dismissed. There was a scheme of 
gratuity in force, which was and is not challenged by the respon-
dent. Clause 4 of that scheme, which is called "Terms of Agree-
ment", provides that if a dispute arises regarding. a ~laim for l'l':Y· 
ment of gratuity of a workman who has been d1sm1ssed for mis-
conduct, such a dispute shall be referred to the labour court 
having jurisdiction, for decision. As a dispute arose with regard 
to the payment of gratuity, the matter was referred to the Labour 
court. Before that court, in the statement of case submitted by the 
Secr

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