MESSRS. BRAHMACHARI RESEARCH INSTITUTE versus ITS WORKMEN

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 45 · Decided: 16-10-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
' 
' 
~· 
' ... 
_( 
• 
s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
MESSRS. BRAHMACHARI RESEARCH 
INSTITUTE 
v. 
ITS WORKMEN 
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
45 
Industrial 
Dispute-Retrenchment 
compensation-Gratuity 
scheme for cases of retrenchment-Award by Tribunal-Whether 
gratuity under award different from retrenchment compensation-
Claim by retrenched workmen for both gratuity and statutory compen-
sation-Industrial Disputes Act, r947 (r4 of r947j), ss. 2(00), 25F,. 
25]. 
The retrenched workmen of the appellant con~ern who were 
paid compensation as provided in s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947, claimed that they were entitled to be paid in .addition 
gratuity under the gratuity scheme .in force in the appellant 
concern as modified by the award of the industrial tribunal dated 
August 18, 1952. The award provided: "The following gratuity 
scheme shall be for Cdses of retrenchment or termination of service 
by the company for any reason other than misconduct or for 
cases of resignation with the consent of the management ... "·• 
The Appellate Tribunal took the view that gratuity provided 
under the award was different from compensation on retrench-
ment payable to a workman under s. 25F of the Act. 
Held, that on a proper construction of the award the amount 
payable thereunder to the workmen on retrenchment though 
called gratuity was really compensation on account of retrench-
ment as provided under s. 25F of the Act, and that the workmen 
were only entitled to one or the other, whichever was more 
advantageous to them in view of .s. 25] of the Act. 
It was not the intention of the legislature that a workman 
on retrenchment should get compensation twice, i.e., once under 
the Act and once again under the scheme in force providing for 
retrenchment compensation, by whatever name the payment 
might have been called .• 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
4of1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the decision dated 
September 19, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal 
of India, Calcutta, in Appeal No. Cal. 235/56. 
B. Sen, S. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghose, for the 
appellants. 
Sukumar Ghose, for the respondents. 
·· I959 
, 
October I6 
I959 
Brahmachari 
Research Institute 
v. 
Their Worktnen 
Wanchoo ]. 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] 
1959. October 16. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
WANOHOO J.-This appeal is directed against the 
decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India in 
an industrial matter. The appellant is a partnership 
concern carrying on business in the manufacture of 
pharmaceutical products. There was a gratuity scheme 
in force in the appellant-concern for a long time. This 
scheme was modified by an award of the industrial 
tribunal dated August 18, 1952 (hereinafter called the 
Award), and since then the modified scheme has been 
in force. 
The financial condition of the appellant 
deteriorated and consequently, it was compelled to 
retrench a number of workmen. It, therefore, applied 
to the Appellate Tribunal under s. 22 of the Industrial 
Disputes {Appellate Tribunal) Act (No. XL VIII of 1950), 
for permission to retrench 89 workmen. The Appellate 
Tribunal granted permission for retrenchment of 75 
workmen only. 
Consequently, after obtaining such 
. permission, the appellant retrenched the workmen and 
paid them compensation as provided in s. 25F of the 
Industrial Dispntes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 
Act). Thereupon a dispute was raised by the retrench-
ed workmen through the union in existence in the 
appell11nt-concern for gratuity on retrenchment under 
the award. This dispute was referred to the Second 
Industrial Tribunal, vVest Bengal, on March 23, 1956, 
for adjudication in the following terms: 
"Whether the seventy-five retrenched employees 
(as per attached list) are entitled to gratuity in addi-
tion to retrenchment benefits ?" 
There was another matter included in the reference, but 
we are not concerned with that in the present appeal. 
The Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the 
retrenched workmen were only entitled to relief as pro-
vided under s. 25F of the Act and were not entitled to 
any gratuity under the Award over and abo\-e the 
compensation payable to them under the Act. Then 
followed an appeal by the workmen to the Appellate 
Tribunal which was allowed. The Appellate Tribunal 
held that the workmen were entitled to gratuity 
-· 
-
-
1 
S.O.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 

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