GUJARAT WOOD WORKS Vs. GENERAL KAMGAR UNION RED FLAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above petition is filed by Messrs Gujarat Wood Works, Bombay, challenging the validity of an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in a dispute between the petitioner-firm and its workers regarding a scheme of service-gratuity and sick leave. After fairly considering all the contentions raised by the parties, the Tribunal framed the following scheme with regard to gratuity :-

(2.) The first contention raised by Mr. Shetye is that the Tribunal committed an error of law in granting gratuity on the basis of consolidated wages, notwithstanding that the workers of the petitioner-firm were separately getting basic wages and dearness allowance and the normal rule is to grant gratuity only on the basis of the basic wages. The second contention raised by him is that the Tribunal committed an error of law in making no distinction between termination of service on death or on account of physical or mental disability and dismissal from service on account of misconduct. Thirdly, Mr. Shetye contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed a minimum of 15 years as qualifying period of service for entitling the workmen to claim gratuity. In support of his contentions, Mr. Shetye relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Its Workmen, [1969 - II L.L.J. 765], and Ghaziabad Engineering Co. v. Its Workmen [1961 - II L.L.J. 777]. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Remington Rand of India v. Workmen, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1421.

(3.) The contentions of Mr. Shetye must be rejected, firstly because none of these ground were urged before the Tribunal and it is not open to the petitioner to urge these points for the first time in this Court in the petition under Art. 226. Moreover, the second and third contentions referred to above are not even mentioned in the petition filed in this Court. Even the decisions cited by Mr. Shetye do not lay down any absolute rule with regard to the scheme of gratuity which requires the Tribunal to fix the gratuity on the basis of basic wages or to lay down 15 or more years as the minimum qualifying period of service as contended by Mr. Shetye. The Tribunal had a discretion in these matters and in the absence of any contention, the Tribunal has awarded the gratuity scheme referred to above. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the award in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Art. 226.