The Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen and Others

Wan,hoo J. \V ANCHOO J.-These two appeals by special leave

arise out of two references made by the Government of Bombay in connection with a dispute between . the appellant-company and two sets of its workmen, name! y, clerical staff and staff other than clerical. The clerical staff had raised four questions which were referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay for adjudi.- cation. Of these, only two points survive in the present appeal, namely, retirement age and gratuity. The non-clerical staff had raised two questions of which only one relating to gratuity arises before us.

It appears that the ap_Pellant-comp'.l'ny is. an al~­ India concern but the maJor part of its busmess rs concentrated in Calcutta. The number of non-clerical staff outside Calcutta is very small as compared to the non-clerical staff in Calcutta while the clerical staff I959 outside Calcutta is much less than the clerical staff in Calcutta. The company had a gratuity scheme in Dunlop Rubber Co., Ltd, force which applied to both clerical and non-clerical v. staff, though there were differences in the scale of pay-Workmen ment depending upon whether the basic salary drawn and Others by workmen other than operatives was more than Rs. 100 or less. In case of operatives, there was a Wanchoo ]. uniform scale equal to the scale for workmen other than operatives dra.wing less than Rs. 100 per mensem.

The clerical and non-clerical staff in Bombay raised disputes and their main contention was that the scale fixed by the scheme in force was lOw and should be raised. As for the retirement. age, the clerical staff claimed that it should be raised from 55 years to 60.

The case of the appellant-company before the tribu:

nal was that as the large majority of the staff both clerical and non-clerical was in Calcutta and as the gratuity scheme.and the retirement age were enforced by virtue of an agreement arrived at between the appellant-company and its workmen both clerical and others in Calcutta 'Yho are a large majority of its total workmen, they should not be changed at the instance of a small minority of workmen both clerical and others in Bombay. The tribunal did not accept this ·contention and raised the age of retirement from 55 years to 60. It also made changes in the gratuity scheme by whioh the scale was raised and made uniform both for clerical staff and others. Thereupon the appellant applied for and obtained special leave ·from this Gourt; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

Shri Palkhivala appearing for the appellant has raised only two points before us, relating to the raising of the retirement age and the change in the scale of .gratuity, and we shall confine ourselves tc;> these two points only. It is conceded by him that the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to order the changes which it has ordered. But his contention is that though the jurisdiction may be there, the tribunal should take into account the special position of an all-India concern and should not make changes particularly at the I959 instance of a small minority of workmen as that would

lead to industrial unrest elsewhere. He further con-Dunlop tends that the scale of gratuity and the age of retirement Rubber Co., Ltd.

v. are matters which are independent of local conditions Workmen and therefore should be uniform throught India in and Others concerns which have an all-India character. He points

out that the conditions of service in the appellant-Wanchoo ]. company are uniform throughout India and were

arrived at by agreement with the unions of workmen at Calcutta where the large majority of the workmen are employed, and in these special circumstances, the tribunal at Bombay should not have made any changes in the retiring age or in the gratuity scheme at the instance of the small minority of workmen in Bombay.

There is no doubt that in the case of an all-India concern it would be advisable to have uniform condi-tions of service throughout India and if uniform conditions prevail in any such concern they should not be lightly changed. At the same time it cannot be forgotten that industrial adjudication is based, in this country at least, on what is known as industry-cum-region basis and cases may arise where it may be necessary in following this principle to make changes even where the conditions of service of an all-India concern are uniform. Besides, however desirable uniformity may be in the case of all-India concerns, the tribunal cannot abstain from seeing that fair con-ditions of service prevail in the industry with which it is concerned. If therefore any scheme, which may be uniformally in force throughout India in the case of an all-India concern, appears to be unfair and not in accord with the prevailing conditions in such matters, it would be the duty of the tribunal to make changes in the scheme to make it fair and bring itinto line with the prevailing conditions in such matters, particularly in the region in which the tribunal is functioning ir-respective of the fact that the demand is made by only a small minority of the workmen employed in one place out ·of the many where the all-India concern carries on business. .

Before we come to consider the two questions raised before us, we may as well point out that the scale of gratuity and the retirement age were or1g1-r959 nally fixed by an agreement arrived at in 1956, between the appellant company and its workmen in Dunlop Rubber Co., Ltd. Calcutta who form a large majority. That agreement v. was for a period of two years ending with Decem-Workmen ber, 31, 1957. Thereafter it was replaced by another and Others agreement also for two years beginning from 1st January, 1958. In that agreement it was specifically Wanchoo provided that no further major issues would be raised excepting those relating to medical aid, retirement age, and retirement benefits. It is clear therefore that even the workmen in Calcutta had reserved the right to raise a dispute with respect to retirement age and gratuity, if necessary. The reason for this is that the references out of which those appeals have arisen were pending before the tribunal in Bombay and the unions in Calcutta wished to await the decision of the Bombay tribunal before finally agreeing to continue the rules relating to retirement age and gratuity. The appellant-company also agreed to make this reservation in the said agreement arrived at between it and the unions in Calcutta.

Therefore, strictly speaking, it cannot be said in this case that there was a ,final agreement in force with respect to these two matters between the appellant and large majority of its workmen in September, 1958 when the Bombay Tribunal gave its award. In any case the Bombay Tribunal was bound to go into the merits of the matter with respect to these two items, namely, retirement age and gratuity, keeping in mind the all-India character of the concern and the previ-ous agreement of 1956, and this is what the tribunal has actually done.

We shall first take the question of retirement age.

The tribunal found that retirement age was fixed between 55 years and 60 in various concerns in . Bombay. It was also of opinion that 55 years was too low an age to be fixed for retirement for the clerical staff and that the trend in all the awards had in recent times been to fix it at 60 years. It, therefore, ordered that so far as the clerical staff was concerned retirement age should be 6-xed at 60 years inste(l.d I959 of 55. We may in this connection refer to a recent

decision of this Court in Guest, Keen, Williams (Private) Dunlop Limited, Calcutta v. P. J. Sterling and Others (1), where Rt1bber Co., Ltd.

v. the age of superannuation of employees in service Workmen before· the Standing Orders came into force, in that and Others concern was fixed at 60 years. In these circumst-

ances if the tribunal thought that it would be fair to U'anchoo ]. fix 60 years as the age of retirement for clerical staff

in spite of the fact that in the agreement of 1956 the retirement age wa.s fixed at 55 years, it cannot be said that the tribunal's order was not in accord with the prevailing conditions in many concerns in that region. In these circumstances we are of opinion that no interference is called for in this matter.

We now come to the question of gratuity. The gratuity scheme in force in the appellant-company on the basis of the agreement of 1956, provided for three-quarters of one month's average basic salary for each completed year of continuous service for staff other than operatives drawing up to Rs. 100 per mensem and thereafter half a month's average basic salary for each year. It also provided three weeks' average basic wages for each completed year of continuous service for operatives. Three years service was the ininimum period for eligibility to gratuity under special circum-stances like death, physical and mental incapacity and 15 years service in all other cases. There was also a provision for deducting some amount in lieu of provident fund credited by the company in 1941 in respect of service prior to 1st July, 1941. The tribunal was of the opinion that the scheme was not adequate and contained features which r were not usual in other prosperous concerns. It pointed out that the scale of gratuity for clerks was on a lower basis than for operatives and that this was against the general conditions of things prevailing in that region. It further pointed out that the clerical and the supervisory staff had a higher standard of living, and had to meet heavier expenses of education of their children who get employment at a late age as compared to operatives. It was, therefore, of opinion that a uniform scale of gratuity should be fixed for all including those getting wages above Rs.: 100 per J9i9 mensem. It also pointed out that the requirement Dunlop Rubber of a minimum service of three years in case of death Co., Ltd. and physical and mental incapacity was another un-v. usual feature of this scheme and held that it should be Workmen and changed. It was further of opinion that the usual Others provision in such schemes was a scale of one month's Wanchoo basic salary for each completed year of coritinuous .

service in case of death, physical and mental incapa- . city and after 15 years' continuous service and that

some gratuity at a lower scale was provided usually even in case of termination of service before the com-pletion of 15 years' service. It therefore provided for half a month's basic salary for each completed year of continuous service after 5 years but upto ten years and three-fourths of basic monthly salary for each year of completed service after ten years but less than fifteen years continuous service and one month's basic salary for each year for the rest. :Finally, it took into account the fact that there was a supplementary gratuity scheme in force in the company with respect to the employees in the employ of the company from before September 1, 1946, and with respect to them it provided that those employees should either opt for the scheme as framed by it or continue in the gratuity scheme of the company along with the supplementary gratuity scheme. It appears therefore from t.he gratuity scheme finally sanctioned by the tribunal that it removed those features from the scheme in force in the appellant-company which were unusual and unfair and not in consonance with, the prevailing conditions for such schemes in that regiOn. In these circumstances we are. of opinion that the tribunal was not bound merely because this is an all-India concern to refrain "

from altering the gratuity scheme which in ~ts opinion had certain unusual features and was not in accord with the prevailing conditions in that region. The appellant's contention therefore on this-head also fails.

The appeals are hereby dismissed with one set of costs.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 159 and 160 of 1958.

Appeals by special leave from the Award dated September 4, 1958, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in Reference (IT) Nos. 138 and 35 of 1958.

N. A. Palkhivala, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant.

G. L. Dudhia and K. L. Hathi, for respondents No. 1and2.

1959. October 16. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by