9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to gratuity scheme and provident fund scheme directions. Analysis: The appellant, an industrial company, challenged the gratuity scheme and provident fund directions issued by the industrial tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The gratuity scheme required a 10-day consolidated wage for each year of service upon retirement or resignation after ten years, which was contested by the appellant's counsel. The argument was based on a previous judgment highlighting the permissibility of industry-cum-region basis for gratuity schemes. However, the court differentiated between the permissibility and exclusivity of this basis, noting that most gratuity schemes are based on individual units. The appellant's contention regarding a minimum service of fifteen years for gratuity was dismissed, emphasizing that the observation in the previous case did not establish a universal rule. The appellant further challenged a clause in the gratuity scheme that denied gratuity in cases of misconduct causing financial loss. The appellant argued that such a clause contradicted the basis of gratuity as a retiral benefit for long and meritorious service. The court disagreed, stating that gratuity is earned for service rendered, irrespective of misconduct at the end of employment. The court also distinguished between retrenchment benefits and gratuity, noting that the latter is not automatically denied in cases of misconduct. The tribunal's clause requiring compensation for financial loss caused by misconduct before gratuity payment was deemed acceptable. Regarding the calculation of years of service for gratuity, the court clarified that continuous service was implied in the scheme's clauses. The appellant's objection to the direction for framing a provident fund scheme resembling the government model under the Employees' Provident Funds Act was based on financial capacity concerns. The tribunal's assessment of the appellant's financial position was challenged, but the court found no grounds for interference, as the appellant had claimed privilege under the Act, preventing detailed financial discussions. The appellant's request for remand was rejected, as it was deemed untimely. Consequently, the appeal challenging the gratuity and provident fund schemes was dismissed by the court.
|
