CASE No. 5 of 1999 · Gauhati High Court

7] Pursuant to the aforesaid Reference, the Labour Court, Dibrugarh , after hearing the parties made the award dated 12.2.2002 which was published o n 28.6.2002, which is under challenge in the present writ proceeding. 8] As stated above, the plea of the petitioner-company is that afte r the enactment of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the liabilities of the pet itioner-company to pay pension/gratuity would be on the basis of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the petitioner company would not be liable to pay under t he earlier Scheme, which would stand superceded by the Act of 1972. Another plea which has been taken in the present case is that the workers had raised the dem and after a prolonged delay of 17 years with an ulterior motive for a wrongful bargain, and as such, the cla im of the workers ought not to have been entertained by the Tribunal. The petiti oner company also contends that this is not an industrial dispute inasmuch it re lates to the claim of only a few workers and not the entire workers.

9] The respondents No.2 and 3 have filed their affidavit-in-oppos ition denying the allegations of the petitioner and stated that the aforesaid (cid:28)B almer Lawrie Pension & Retirement Scheme (cid:29) was a result of a collective bargainin g settlement between the Balmer Lawrie Company and other signatory companies inc luding the said Jhanzie Tea Estate which owned the petitioner company on one par t and Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha representing the workmen on the other part. The petitioner company being a part of the aforesaid settlement, their liabilit y under the said Scheme would continue till the settlement is otherwise revoked or substituted by both the parties by another agreement. In the present case, no such revocation or substitution of the aforesaid settlement had been undertaken between the parties by any subsequent settlement. In view of that, the earlier settlement would survive and as such, the aforesaid Scheme which was prepared on the basis of the settlement cannot be revoked by either party voluntarily or b y the enactment of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

As regards the contention of the petitioner company that the afo 10] resaid dispute was raised after a prolong delay with an ulterior motive for wron gful bargain, it cannot be stated that it was done with ulterior motive inasmuch they had the legitimate claim to make such demand under the aforesaid Scheme. It may be also stated that the said Scheme was made for the benefit of the worke rs and being beneficial in nature, this Court would not ignore the claims of the workers merely on the ground of delay. 11] Further, as regards the contention that there was no industrial dispute as the dispute relates to only a few workmen cannot be accepted inasmuch as since the interest of workmen had been already taken up by the employees uni on and also since the claim arises out of the settlement reached with the employ ees association, the Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha. It may be noted that the Supreme Court had held that even in ca 12] se of a dispute arising out of single workman, such a dispute can be an industri al dispute if the same is espoused by the workers union or a number of workers.

In Central Provinces Transport Service Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan, 1956 SCR 956, the Supreme Court held that, (cid:28)9. The preponderance of judicial opinion is clearly in favour of the last of th e three views stated above, and there is considerable reason behind it. Notwiths tanding that the language of Section 2(k) is wide enough to cover a dispute betw een an employer and a single employee, the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act does appear to contemplate that the machinery provided therein should be set in motion, to settle only disputes which involve the rights of workmen as a class and that a dispute touching the individual rights of a workman was not intended to be the subject of an adjudication under the Act, when the same had not been t aken up by the Union or a number of workmen. If that were the correct position, the respondent was not entitled to apply under Section 16(2) of the Act as the w orkmen in the industry had not adopted his dispute as their own and chosen to tr eat it as their casus belli with the company.

But then, we are directly concerne d in this appeal not with the Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 1947 but with the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act 23 of 1947, and in the view whic h we take of the rights of the respondent under that statute, there is no need t o express a final opinion on the question whether a dispute simpliciter between an employer and a workman would be an industrial dispute within Section 2(k) of Act 14 of 1947. The aforesaid principle was reiterated in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, 1962 Supp (3) SCR 589 where it was held, (cid:28) & & & &This question however is not res integra. It has been considered in a numbe r of cases in this Court and decided adversely to the present contention of the respondents. In Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd. v. Raghunath Gopal Pat ivardhan7 the point in controversy was whether an individual dispute was an indu strial dispute within Section 2(k) of the Act.

After stating that three divergen t views had been expressed on the question and that the preponderance of judicia l opinion was in favour of the view that a dispute between an employee and a sin gle employee could not per se be an industrial dispute but that it might become one if it was taken up by a union or a number of workmen, this Court observed: (cid:28)there is considerable reason behind it. Notwithstanding that the language of Se ction 2(k) is wide enough to cover a dispute between an employer and a single em ployee, the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act does appear to contemplate tha t the machinery provided therein should be set in motion, to settle only dispute s which involve the right of workmen as a class and that a dispute touching the individual right of a workman was not intended to be the subject of an adjudicat ion under the Act, when the same had not been taken up by the Union or a number of workmen (cid:29).

(p. 964). This view was adopted in Newspapers Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal U.P.8 wher e the point arose directly for decision. Discussing the meaning the expression, of (cid:28)industrial dispute (cid:29) in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act which is the same as Section 2(k) of the Act, this Court observed that though on the Rule of constru ction laid down in Section 13(2) of the General clauses Act, 1897, the plural wo uld include the singular, in the context of the legislation, the word (cid:28)workmen (cid:29) did not include (cid:28)a workman (cid:29), and that a dispute between a employer and a single workman did not fall within the definition of industrial dispute. Both these dec isions were followed by this Court in Bombay Union of Journalists v. (cid:28)Hindu (cid:29), Bo mbay9 and the law was thus stated: (cid:28)Therefore, the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to an individual di spute as distinguished from a dispute involving a group of workmen is excluded, unless the workmen as a body or a considerable section of them make common cause with the individual workman (cid:29).

(p. 439). 7: 1956 SCR 956 8: 1957 SCR 754 9: (1961) 2 LLJ 36 13] In course of the argument, the learned counsel for the responde nts has referred to a decision of this Court passed in W.P(C) No.7130 of 2002 re ported in 2008 (4) GLT 920 in which this Court had decided the same claim under the same Scheme and under the same Award and this Court after due consideration of the award, had declined to interfere with the Award and upheld the said Award . In the aforesaid judgment, this Court had held that benefits receivable under the Scheme was made available only to a specified class of employees, who had joined services in the concerned companies prior to 1.1.1950 and who did no t contribute to the provident fund scheme of the concerned companies. It was hel d that this benefit was conferred through settlement reached through collective bargaining and nothing was incorporated in the Scheme to indicate that the benef its payable under the Scheme would be withdrawn if similar benefits are made ava ilable to the workman under statutory obligation or some other obligation.

It wa s therefore held that when some pensionary benefits are agreed to be paid to a s pecific class of workmen through mutual agreement, the Management would not be r ight in withdrawing such benefits unilaterally merely because some additional b enefits by way of gratuity is required to be paid under statutory obligation. 14] This Court respectfully agrees with the reasoning and the conclu sions reached in the aforesaid writ petition being W.P(C) No.7310 of 2002. Howev er, this Court would like to add that there is nothing under the Payment of Grat uity Ac, 1972, by which any such Scheme would stand superseded, as the said Sche me was not by virtue of any enactment but due to a settlement arrived at between the management and the workers Association. As such, the benefits accrued under the aforesaid Scheme would be in addition to the benefits conferred by the Paym ent of Gratuity Act, 1972.