THE GARMENT CLEANING WORKS versus ITS WORKMEN

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 711 · Decided: 03-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

"J 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
711 
THE GARMENT CLEANING WORKS 
v. 
ITS WORKMEN 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Gratuity-Scheme framed by Tribunal-
Validity-The Industrial Disputes Act, r947 (q of 1947), s. r2(5). 
The Industrial Tribunal, on a reference under s. 12 of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. framed a gratuity scheme for 
the appellant company. The company challenged the vali-
dity of some of the provisions of the scheme on the grounds, 
inter alia, (r) that the scheme was framed on the basis of the 
nnits, while it should have been done on industry-cum-region 
basis, (2) that the scheme provided for the award of gratuity on 
the retirement or resignation of a workman after ten years' ser-
vice instead of fixing the period as fifteen years, and (3) that 
cl. (ii )(b) of the scheme which provided that if a workman was 
dismissed or discharged for misconduct causing financial loss to 
the works, gratuity to the extent of the loss should not be paid 
to the workman concerned, was erroneous, because, on principle, 
misconduct put a blot on the character of his service and that 
disqualified him from any claim of gratuity. 
Held: (r) that industry-cum-region basis is not the only 
basis on which a gratuity scheme could be framed and one 
framed on the basis of the units cannot be challenged as in-
valid. 
The Bharatkhand Textile Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. The 
Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 329, ex-
plained. 
(2) that the clause in the scheme prescribing ten years' 
minimum service to enable an employee to claim gratuity is 
valid. 
The Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, [1959] 
S.C.R. 12, explained. 
• 
(3) that gratuity is not paid to an employee gratuitously 
or merely as a matter of boon, but is paid to him for the service 
rendered by him to the employer; consequently he should not be 
wholly deprived of the benefit thus earned by long and merito-
rious service even though at the end of such service he might 
have been found guilty of misconduct which entailed his dismis-
sal. Accordingly, cl. (ii)(b) of the scheme is a valid provision. 
Crvrr. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
621of1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated 
January 15, 1960, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, 
in Reference (LT.) No. 94 of 1959, 
April 3. 
I96I 
G·arment 
Cleaning lVorks 
v. 
Its Workmen 
712 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962) 
B. Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant. 
G. L. Dhudia and K. L. Hathi: for the respondent. 
1961. April 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
G . 
-- k 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-Two demands made by the 
a;endrngad "'I· respondents, the workmen of the appellant company, 
the Garment Cleaning Works, Bombay, were referred 
for industrial adjudication to the industrial tribunal 
under s. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 
1947. These demands were for gratuity and provi-
dent fund respectively. The tribunal has framed a 
gratuity scheme and has passed an order that the 
appellant should draw up a scheme of provident fund 
on the lines of the model provident fund scheme 
drawn by the Government under the Employees' Pro-
vident Funds Act, 1952 (XIX of 1952), with a rate of 
contribution of 6i per cent. of total wages. Both the 
gratuity scheme as drawn up and the directions as to 
the drawing up of a provident fund scheme are chal-
lenged by the appellant by its present appeal which it 
has brought to this Court by special leave. 
In regard to the direction as to the gratuity scheme 
the argument which has been urged before us by Mr. 
Sen is that the problem of starting such a scheme 
should have been considered on an industry-cum-region 
basis and considerations relevant to the said basis 
should have been taken into account. In support of 
this argument he has relied upon a judgment of this 
Court in The Bharatkhand Textile Mfg. Go. Ltd. & Ors. 
v. The Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad (' ). 
In 
that case the industrial court had no doubt dealt with 
a claim for gratuity made by the workmen on the 
industry-cum-region basis, and an attack against the 
validity of the said approach made by the employer 
in regard to the scheme was repelled by this Court. 
It would, however, be noticed that all that this Court 
decided in that case was that it was erroneous to con-
' 
tend that a gratuity scheme could never be based on 
industry-cum-region basis, and in support of this con-
clusion several c

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