TATA IRON STEEL CO LTD Vs. SUDHIR CHANDRA SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been heard together as the identical question involved in them is whether an employee of the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. for the sake of brevity referred to as Tisco Ltd or the Company, is entitled, as a matter of right to get gratuity on his retirement from service. I shall refer separately to the facts of the two cases, which are also similar, and then proceed to discuss and decide the common question which falls for determination in these appeals. F. A. 444/63.

(2.) TISCO Ltd. is the appellant in this appeal. The suit of the employee for gratuity and interest has been decreed by the court below against the appellant which was defendant No. 1 Tata Industries Private Ltd. The Managing Agents of Tisco Ltd. was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the action. T. V. S. Ratnam, defendant No. 3 was the Head of the Department in which the plaintiff respondent was working at the time of his retirement. The suit has been dismissed against defendants 2 and 3.

(3.) THE pleas taken by the defendants in their written statement, inter alia, are that the plaintiff was not entitled as a matter of right, to the benefit of leave according to the rules or to retiring gratuity under the service conditions. It was not correct to say that the service of the plaintiff was without any blemish or fault before he resigned as he was found guilty of misconduct under the works standing orders of the defendant Company which apply to all employees of defendant No. 1. The letter of resignation dated 27 -7 -59 giving one month's notice was handed over by the plaintiff to defendant No. 3 at about 7 P. M, of a sudden and it was accepted in due course but not unconditionally. With respect to gratuity as retiring benefit, there is a set of rules but the rules do not provide that gratuity is payable as of right to all employees after completion of 15 years' service with the Company. The gratuity is payable at the absolute discretion of the Company irrespective of the fact whether the plaintiff has or has not performed all or any of the conditions stated in the rules and. no employee, howsoever otherwise eligible, is entitled as of right to any payment under the Gratuity Rules. The omission on the part of defendant No. 3 in not drawing up the gratuity application or non -payment of gratuity was not wrongful, arbitrary, vexatious or malicious. The further plea is that on 27 -7 -59 at 7 p. m. when the plaintiff submitted his letter of resignation, he was acting in the place of the General Foreman who was on leave and he was also looking after the work of the Assistant Superintendent of the Department who had suddenly been taken ill. In the absence of his two superiors, whose work he was looking after, it was not possible to grant leave to the plaintiff and the leave asked for was accordingly refused to him. In spite of this refusal, the plaintiff stayed away from the work from the 28th July. 1959. Accordingly a charge sheet was issued to him asking him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against Mm for staying away from work in dereliction of his duty and in defiance of the superior's orders expressly asking him not to proceed on leave. Explanation was submitted and enquiry was held in the Chief Personnel Manager's office on 31 -7 -59, as a result of which the plaintiff was found guilty of gross misconduct in that he wilfully disobeyed the superior's order. The Management, however, did not take any strong disciplinary action against the plaintiff. He resumed his duty on the 4th August, 1959 and was subsequently granted leave from 8th August on which day the Assistant Superintendent of the Department resumed duty.