{"id":41770,"date":"1969-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969"},"modified":"2018-06-06T17:35:10","modified_gmt":"2018-06-06T12:05:10","slug":"remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969","title":{"rendered":"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 17 October, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 17 October, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1421, \t\t 1970 SCR (2) 935<\/div>\n
Author: C Vaidyialingam<\/div>\n
Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nREMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE WORKMEN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/10\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nSHELAT, J.M.\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nDUA, I.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR 1421\t\t  1970 SCR  (2) 935\n 1969 SCC  (3) 913\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1973 SC2344\t (3)\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Dispute-Medical,  benefit-Company's\t Scheme\t for\nCalcutta  employees  whether applicable\t to  Madras  region-\nGratuity-Qualifying period for workmen guilty of misconduct-\nWhether\t gratuity  should be payable to\t workmen  guilty  of\nviolence, riotous behaviour etc.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nAn industrial dispute between the appellant company and\t its\nworkmen\t relating,. inter alia, to bonus,  medical  benefits\nanti  gratuity\twas, referred by the  State  Government\t of.\nMadras\ton  April  6, 1965 to the  Industrial  Tribunal\t for\nadjudication.\tThe.  Tribunal awarded bonus at 2O,% of\t the\nconsolidated wages as provided in the Payment of Bonus\tAct,\n1965.  As to medical benefit& the Tribunal diverted that the\ncompany should pay the- cost of medicines prescribed by\t the\ncompany's  doctor and the full cost of hospitalisation\twhen\nit  was. recomanded by the company's doctor.   The  Tribunal\nmodified,  the company'& gratuity scheme in accordance\twith\nthe workmen's demands.\tThe company appealed to, this  Court\nagainst\t  the  award  The  question  of\t bonus\thad  to\t  be\nconsidered,  in, the light of this Courts decision in  Japan\nTrading,  Company's  law.   On\tthe  question.\tof   medical\nbenefits  the  Court had to consider whether  the  company's\nscheme\tfor  its  Calcutta employees could  be\textended  to\nMadras Region.\tIn regard to gratuity the main questions for\nconsideration  were  as,  to, the  qualifying,\tperiod\tfor-\npayment\t  of  gratuity\tto  workmen  who  were\t guilty\t  of\nmisconduct,  and  whether  gratuity should  be\tpayable\t for\nworkmen whose\nmisconduct     consisted of violence, riotous behaviour etc.\nHELD:\t  (i)  In  View of this Court's decision  in  Jalian\nTrading Company's case\t the.Payment of Bonus Act, 1965\t was\nnot  applicable in respect of the year in question, and\t the\nbonus  payable had to be calculated in accordance with,\t the\nFull Bench, Formula.  The award to that extent therefore had\nto   be\t set  aside  and  remanded,  to\t the  Tribunal\t for\ndetermining  the bonus in accordance with the  said  Formula\n[937 E]\nJalam Trading Co. v. Mill Mazdoor Union, [1967] 1 SC.R.\t 15,\nreferred to.\n(ii)  In the appellant company's earlier cases\trelating  to\nits Bangalore, Hyderabad and Kerala Branched this Court\t had\nheld that the Company's Calcutta scheme relating to  medical\nbenefit for its workmen was fair and reasonable and had made\nthe   said  scheme  applicable\tto  these  areas  also.\t  No\nsubstantial  difference had been shown between\tthese  areas\nand  the  Madras region affecting the  question\t of  medical\nbenefit.  These areas and the no legitimate reason  why\t the\nCalcutta scheme should not be applied to the workmen in\t the\npresent\t case. [The Court framed an eight point\t scheme\t for\nmedical benefit based on the Calcutta scheme] [939 A-940 C]\nRemington  Rand\t of India v. The Workmen, C.A.\tNos.<\/a>  856\/68\netc. dt. 10-12-1968, applied.\n(iii.)\t  Once\tthe  principal,\t that gratuity\tis  paid  to\nensure\tgood conduct throughout the period that the  workman\nserves his employer as laid drown\n936\nin Calcutta Insurance Co. some distinction in the matter  of\nthe  qualifying\t period\t between cases\tof  resignation\t and\nretirement  on the one hand and dismissal for misconduct  on\nthe  other becomes logically necessary.\t Such a\t distinction\ncannot legitimately be assailed as unreasonable.   Similarly\nif the object underlying the scheme of gratuity is to secure\nindustrial  harmony  and satisfaction among  workmen  it  is\nimpossible  to equate cases of death,  physical\t incapacity,\nretirement  and\t resignation with cases\t of  termination  of\nservice\t incurred  on  account of  misconduct.\t Besides,  a\nlonger\tqualifying period in the latter cases  would  ensure\nrestraint against wailful use of violence and force, neglect\netc. [948 E]\nAs  laid down in Delhi Cloth & General Mills case that\tacts\namounting  to misconduct as defined in the standing  orders,\nwhen they are made, or the model standing orders, where they\nare applicable differ in degree of gravity, nature and their\nimpact on the discipline and the working of the concern, and\nthat though grave in their nature all of them may not result\nin  loss  capable  of being calculated in  terms  of  money.\nAmongst,  them\tthere would be some  which  would  forthwith\ndisentitle  the workman from retaining his  employment\tand\njustifying his dismissal.\nFor  the  reasons given in the Delhi Cloth &  General  Mills\ncase  it was necessary to modify the scheme of gratuity\t and\nto add in cl. 5 thereof a proviso that in cases where  there\nhas  been termination of service on account of\tan  employee\nfound  guilty of act or acts involving violence against\t the\nmanagement  or other employees or riotous or disorderly\t be-\nhaviour in or near the company's premises, the company would\nbe entitled to forfeit the gratuity which would otherwise be\npayable\t to the concerned workmen.  Clause 5 should also  be\nmodified  so  as to introduce therein  15  years  continuous\nservice\t as the qualifying period for earning  gratuity\t in\ncases when the service of an employee has been terminated on\naccount\t of  misconduct\t and that such\tgratuity  should  be\npayable\t at the rate prescribed in cl. 3(d) of\tthe  scheme.\n[948 G-949 D]\nCalcutta  Insurance  Co.  Ltd. v. Their\t Workmen,<\/a>  [1967]  2\nS.C.R. 596. and Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v.\t The\nWorkmen,<\/a> [1969] 2 S.C.R. 307, applied.\nGarment Cleaning Works v. Its Workmen,<\/a> [1962] 2 S.C.R.\t711,\nMotipur Zamindari (P) Ltd. v. Workmen,<\/a> [1965] 2 L.L.J.\t139,\nEmployees v. Reserve Bank of India,<\/a> [1966] 1 S.C.R. 25,\t 58,\nRemington  Rand\t of India Ltd. v.' Their Workmen,  [1968]  1\nL.L.J. 542, Remington Rand of India v. The Workmen,<\/a> [1968] 1\nS.C.R.\t164, 168 and Indian Oxygen & Acetylene Co Ltd.\tcase\n[1956] 1 L.L.J. 435, considered.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1551 of 1966.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the Award dated  February\t 28,
\n1966  of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras’in I. D. No. 21  of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
H.   R. Gokhale and D. N. Gupta, for the appellant.
\nM.   K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu and vineet Kumar, for
\nthe respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShelat, J. On demands for revision of wage-scales,  dearness
\nallowance,  medical  benefit, bonus for\t the  year  1963-64,
\ngratuity
\n\t\t\t    937<\/span>
\netc.  having  been  made by the workmen\t of  the  appellant-
\ncompany in its Madras and the other branches in that  region
\nand  disputes thereabout having arisen between\tthe  company
\nand its said workmen, the Government of Madras referred them
\nby its notification dated April 6, 1965 for adjudication  to
\nthe Industrial Tribunal, Madras.  The Tribunal granted\tsome
\nand  rejected  the rest of the demands.\t  Aggrieved  by\t the
\naward  the  company filed this appeal  under  special  leave
\ngranted by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
Though the award dealt with a number of demands counsel\t for
\nthe  appellant-company restricted its challenge against\t the
\naward  on  three  subjects  only.   Consequently,  we\tare,
\nconcerned  in  this appeal with those three  subjects  only,
\nnamely,\t bonus\tfor the year 1963-64, medical  benefits\t and
\nrevision by the Tribunal of the company’s existing  gratuity
\nscheme.\n<\/p>\n
As  regards the bonus, the company had already paid  to\t the
\nworkmen bonus at the rate of 4 months’ basic pay as  against
\nthe  demand for the maximum bonus calculated  in  accordance
\nwith the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and on consolidated  as
\nagainst the basic wages.  The Tribunal conceded that  demand
\nand  granted  bonus at 209% of the consolidated\t wages.\t  In
\nview, however, of this Court’s decision in Jalan Trading Co.
\nv.  Mill  Mazdoor Union,<\/a>(1) Mr. Ramamurthi for\tthe  workman
\nconceded.  that the Act cannot apply in respect of the\tyear
\nin  question and that the bonus payable for that  year\twill
\nhave to be calculated on the basis of the Full Bench Formula
\nas  approved  by  this Court.  The  award  to  that  extent,
\ntherefore, has to be set aside and remanded to the  Tribunal
\nfor  determining  the  bonus in\t accordance  with  the\tsaid
\nFormula.\n<\/p>\n
On the question of medical facilities, the workmen’s  demand
\nis  contained in paras 27 to 31 of their statement of  claim
\nfiled  before  the Tribunal according to which\tthe  workmen
\nwanted\tthe  company  to  reimburse  all  medical   expenses
\nincurred by them on production of bills therefore.  In paras
\n27  and 28 of the statement, it was stated that the  company
\nhad a scheme for medical benefit for its workmen at Calcutta
\nmade  under the consent award of 1962 and that there was  no
\nreason “why this amenity should be refused to the workmen in
\nthis  region”.\tPara 30 of the statement stated\t that  there
\nwas  a discussion between the parties regarding this  demand
\nwhen  the  company agreed to appoint a medical\tofficer\t for
\nconsultation  by  the workmen and also to meet the  cost  of
\nmedicines upto Rs. 100 for a workman per year.\tThis  offer,
\nhowever,  was  rejected\t on  three  grounds:  (1)  that\t the
\ncondition as to the ceiling was discriminatory, (2) that the
\nceiling\t was too low and (3) that there was no\twarrant\t for
\nnot  extending the benefit to workmen of the branch  offices
\noutside Madras.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1967] 1 S.C.R. 15.\n<\/p>\n
938<\/span><\/p>\n
This demand is dealt with by the Tribunal in para 14 of\t the
\naward.\t It is clear therefrom that the\t union’s  contention
\nbefore\tthe Tribunal was that there was no reason why  “this
\namenity of medical facility which the company has granted to
\nits Calcutta workmen should be refused to the workmen of the
\nMadras\tregion”.  The contention thus clearly was  that\t the
\ncompany having made a scheme for its Calcutta employees,  it
\nwas discriminatory to refuse such a scheme to its workmen in
\nMadras\tregion.\t It is equally clear that the offer made  by
\nthe company and referred to in the statement of claim by the
\nworkmen was rejected as it contained a ceiling which was not
\nin  its\t Calcutta scheme, and it was,  therefore,  that\t its
\noffer  was  considered\tdiscriminatory.\t In  view  of  these
\ncontentions  the Tribunal agreed that a scheme\tfor  medical
\nbenefit for this region was called for.\t The Calcutta scheme
\nwas  not  produced  before the Tribunal\t and  therefore\t the
\nTribunal  proceeded to frame its own scheme.   The  Tribunal
\nrejected  the  demand  for  reimbursement  of  all   medical
\nexpenses  in respect of which bills would be produced as  it
\nfelt  that such a provision would lead to  abuses  including
\nthe  obtaining\tof  false  bills.   Instead,  the   Tribunal
\ndirected  that\tthe  company should pay\t the  cost  of\tsuch
\nmedicines  as  are prescribed by the  company’s\t doctor,  if
\nsupported by genuine bills, and should also pay all cost  of
\nhospitalisation\t if  and  when it  was\trecommended  by\t the
\ncompany’s doctor.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t for the company objected to this part of the  award
\non  the grounds (1) that the Tribunal was not  justified  in
\nthrowing  on  the  company  the\t entire\t burden\t of  medical
\nexpenses including the cost of hospitalisation even in cases
\nof major diseases which workmen might suffer or contact, (2)
\nthat it was no part of the employer’s obligation to  provide
\nfor  such expenses and that too to an unlimited degree,\t and
\n(3)  that the award should have provided a ceiling  both  in
\nrespect\t of  the cost of medicines and\tof  hospitalisation.
\nThe argument was that the grievance of the workmen was\tthat
\ndenial\tof the medical amenity to them as the one  given  to
\nits  Calcutta workmen was discriminatory, and therefore,  if
\nthe  Tribunal decided to concede the demand, it should\thave
\nbeen  on the same lines as the Calcutta scheme.\t  Mr.  Rama-
\nmurthi,\t on  the other hand, contended that (a)\t it  was  an
\naccepted  principle  that though a company may have  an\t all
\nIndia organisation, it was not necessary that if should have
\nuniform\t conditions of service in all the regions and  that,
\ntherefore,  merely because the company has a medical  scheme
\nfor  its Calcutta office it did not follow that scheme\tmust
\nalso  be  applied to its workmen in Madras region,  and\t (b)
\nthat  the scheme framed by the Tribunal was fair and  should
\nnot  be\t interfered with in order only to bring it  in\tline
\nwith that of Calcutta.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    939<\/span><\/p>\n
In  a recent decision concerning this very company and\tits,
\nworkmen\t  in  Bangalore,  Hyderabad  and   Kerala   branches
\n(Remington Rand of India v. The Workmen)<\/a>(1), this Court\t had
\nto  consider  this very question.  The\tTribunals  in  those
\ncases. had, as in this case, made schemes which imposed\t the
\nburden\tof  medical facilities on the  company\twithout\t any
\nceiling\t and  extended therein such benefit  to\t the  family
\nmembers of the workmen also.  In those cases, on our finding
\nthe company’s Calcutta scheme to be fair and reasonable,  we
\nsubstituted  it\t for the schemes framed by  the,  respective
\nTribunals.   The  Calcutta scheme is thus  in  operation  in
\nthose areas also.  Counsel for the workmen has not shown  to
\nus  any substantial difference between those areas  and\t the
\nMadras\tregion affecting, the question of  medical  benefit.
\nWe,,  therefore, find no legitimate reason why the  Calcutta
\nscheme\tshould not be applied to these workmen.\t It is\ttrue
\nthat medical benefit is excepted in that scheme for  certain
\ndiseases   of  a  contagious  and  epidemic  nature.\tThat
\npresumably was done on the ground that for such diseases the
\nprimary\t duty to give relief is of the State and not of\t the
\nemployer.   For the reasons given in that decision,  we\t set
\naside  the directions given by the Tribunal in this.  behalf
\nand substitute them by the following scheme :\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.    When a workman during the course of\t his
\n\t      duty  requires  medical attention,  and  where
\n\t      such  attention  is  given  by  the  company’s
\n\t      doctor (i.e. a doctor or doctors nominated  by
\n\t      the company including a doctor nominated as  a
\n\t      part-time doctor) and medicines are prescribed
\n\t      by  him, the cost of such prescription  should
\n\t      be borne by the company;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    In\tthe event of a workman falling\tsick
\n\t      at his residence and the illness is other than
\n\t      a venereal disease, leprosy, smallpox, typhoid
\n\t      or cholera, he should be paid the cost of\t the
\n\t      medicines prescribed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    Bills  or  cash vouchers  pertaining  to
\n\t      such  prescription  should  be  produced\t for
\n\t      counter  signature  of  the  company’s  doctor
\n\t      before payment is authorised;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.    Disease  of a serious  nature  requiring
\n\t      hospitalisation\t will\t be    subject\t  to
\n\t      consideration by the company;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5.    At\tthe time of employment\tthe  company
\n\t      will  be\tentitled  to  get  the\t prospective
\n\t      employees examined by the company’s doctor and
\n\t      their  employment\t will be  subject  to  being
\n\t      found medically fit;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6.    All company employees who are  presently
\n\t      employed\tor those employed in future will  be
\n\t      medically
\n\t      (1)  C.A.\t Nos. 856. 1475 and  2119  of  1968,
\n\t      decided on December 10, 1968.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       940<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      examined\tby the company’s doctor once a\tyear
\n\t      or   at\tsuch  other   periodical   intervals
\n\t      determined  by the company but the results  of
\n\t      such   medical   examinations  will   not\t  be
\n\t      prejudicial to the workmen’s employment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      7.    In\tcase  a workman is  found  medically
\n\t      unfit to continue in service, the company will
\n\t      decide  his  case\t in  consultation  with\t the
\n\t      union’s secretary; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      8.    This  scheme will come to an end as\t and
\n\t      when the Employees’ State Insurance Scheme  is
\n\t      extended to the employees concerned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  question  of laying down any ceiling need not  be\tcon-
\nsidered as the company, we are told, is agreeable to  extend
\nthis scheme in this region.\n<\/p>\n
The  third item in respect of which the\t company  challenges
\nthe  award  is\tthe revision made by  the  Tribunal  of\t the
\nexisting  gratuity  scheme.  The workmen’s  demand  in\tthis
\nrespect\t was  :\t (1) that the maximum limit  of\t 15  months’
\nsalary should be enhanced to 20 months’ salary, and (2) that
\nthe provision in the existing scheme that no gratuity  would
\nbe  payable  to\t a  workman  dismissed\ton  the\t ground\t  of
\nmisconduct should be substituted by a provision that even in
\nsuch cases gratuity should be payable but the company  would
\nbe  entitled to deduct from such gratuity amount the  amount
\nof financial loss, if any, resulting from such misconduct.
\nThe  Tribunal’s view was that these demands were  reasonable
\nand  accordingly made modifications in the existing  scheme.
\nAt  first, Mr. Gokhale objected to this part of\t the  award. first
\nly  on the ground that the Tribunal ought not to  have
\nallowed gratuity even in cases of dismissal for\t misconduct,
\nand  secondly, that the qualifying period in the  case\tof
\ntermination  of\t service by the company otherwise  than\t for
\nmisconduct  should  be 10 years and not the  graded  periods
\nfrom  5\t to 15 years as provided in the\t award.\t  On  second
\nthoughts  he  did  not\tpress  the  second  objection.\t and
\ntherefore,  nothing  need be said about\t it.   He,  however,
\ncontended  that if gratuity even in cases of  dismissal\t for
\nmisconduct is to be made payable, a provision should be made
\nthat it would be forfeited if the misconduct is a gross\t one
\ninvolving violence, riotous behaviour etc. and for the\trest
\nof  the cases, the qualifying period should be 15  years  of
\ncontinuous service.\n<\/p>\n
These  objections involve a principle, and  therefore,\tneed
\nserious consideration.\tThe principle invoked by Mr. Gokhale
\nis,  firstly,  that since gratuity is paid as a\t reward\t for
\nlong  and meritorious service it would be inconsistent\twith
\nthat  principle to award gratuity in cases of dismissal\t for
\nmisconduct,  for. such cases cannot be treated as  cases  of
\nmeritorious service, and
\n\t\t\t    941<\/span>
\nsecondly, the provision in such cases for deduction only  of
\nfinancial  loss resulting from misconduct committed  by\t the
\nworkman is neither proper nor consistent with the  principle
\non which gratuity is made payable by an employer.  A workman
\nmay be guilty of gross misconduct, such as riotous behaviour
\nor  assault on a member of the staff.  Such  misconduct\t may
\nnot  result  in\t any  financial loss  to  the  company,\t and
\ntherefore,  the workman would be paid full gratuity  amount.
\nThe  contention was that it would be a serious anomaly\tthat
\nwhile a workman, who has caused some damage to the company’s
\nproperty  and is dismissed on the ground that he was  guilty
\nof misconduct would have the gratuity amount payable to\t him
\nreduced to the extent of that damage, another workman,\twho,
\nfor  instance,\tassaults and causes injury, even  a  serious
\ninjury,\t to  another  employee would, though  liable  to  be
\ndismissed,  be entitled to the full gratuity merely  because
\nthe  misconduct\t of  which he is guilty,  though  graver  in
\nnature, does not result in pecuniary loss to the company.
\nIn support of his contention, Mr. Gokhale leaned heavily  on
\ntwo  recent  decisions of this Court in\t Calcutta  Insurance
\nCo. Ltd. v.    Their  Workmen<\/a>(1)  and  The  Delhi  Cloth   &
\nGeneral\t Mills Company Ltd. v. The Workmen<\/a>(2).\t Relying  on
\nthese  decisions, he urged, that in cases of  dismissal\t for
\nmisconduct,   the  qualifying  period  should  not   be\t  as
\nprescribed  by\tthe  Tribunal  but  must  be  15  years\t  of
\ncontinuous  service.   Mr. Ramamurthi, on  the\tother  hand,
\ncontended that the principle that gratuity is a reward\tfor
\nlong   and  meritorious\t service  and  that  for  a   single
\nmisconduct  after such service, such misconduct\t should\t not
\nresult\tin deprivation of gratuity except to the  extent  of
\nthe  actual  monetary loss caused to the employer  has\tbeen
\nlong  accepted in industrial adjudication and should not  be
\nabandoned,  and\t that  the two decisions relied\t on  by\t Mr.
\nGokhale\t should\t not be construed as having  the  cumulative
\nresult of enhancing the qualifying period and also depriving
\ngratuity  in cases of dismissal for misconduct.\t  The  first
\ndecision,  according  to him, lays down an increase  in\t the
\nqualifying period from 10 years, which generally used to  be
\nthe period for earning gratuity, to 15 years, and the second
\nlays  down  Certain  exceptions to the\taccepted  rule\tthat
\ndeduction  of  monetary loss resulting from  misconduct\t was
\nsufficient.   He  argued that neither of the  two  decisions
\nlays  down  that both the consequences must follow  where  a
\nworkman is dismissed for misconduct, even if such misconduct
\nhas not resulted in any monetary loss to the employer.
\nIn view of these contentions it becomes necessary for us  to
\nexamine the earlier decisions cited before us before we come
\nto
\n(1) [1967] 2 S.C.R. 596.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 307.\n<\/p>\n
942<\/span><\/p>\n
the  cases of Calcutta Insurance Co. Ltd.(1) and  the  Delhi
\nCloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.(2).\n<\/p>\n
The question as, to whether gratuity should be, payable even
\nthough\tthe  concerned workman is dismissed  for  misconduct
\nappears\t to  have  been raised for the\tfirst  time  is\t The
\nGarment\t Cleaning  Works v. Its Workmen<\/a>(3).   The  objection
\nthere raised related to cl. 4 of the gratuity scheme: framed
\nby  the\t Tribuml which provided that even if a\tworkman\t was
\ndismissed or discharged for misconduct, gratuity would still
\nbe  payable  except that if such a  misconduct\tresulted  in
\nfinancial  loss,  to-  the works, gratuity  should  be\tpaid
\nafter,\tdeducting  such\t loss.\t The  contention  urged\t  by
\ncounsel,  but  which failed,, was that such  a\tclause\twas,
\ninconsistent  with the principle on, which  gratuity  claims
\nwere based, namely, that they were in the nature of  retiral
\nbenefit\t  based’   on.\tlong   and   meritorious,   service.
\nTherefore,  if\ta workman was guilty of misconduct  and\t was
\ndismissed or discharged, it would be a blot on his long\t and
\nmeritorious service and in such a case it would not be\topen
\nto  him to claim gratuity.  This was a general argument\t and
\nwas  repelled as such is clear from what the Court  said  at
\npage 715 of the Report :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “On  principle,  if gratuity is earned  by  an
\n\t      employee\tfor long and meritorious service  it
\n\t      is,  difficult to understand why\tthe  benefit
\n\t      thus  earned by long and\tmeritorious  service
\n\t      should  not be available to the employee\teven
\n\t      though at the end of such service he may\thave
\n\t      been found guilty of misconduct which  entails
\n\t      his  dismissal.  Grautuity is not paid to\t the
\n\t      employee gratuitously or merely as a matter of
\n\t      boon.   It  is  paid to him  for\tthe  service
\n\t      rendered\tby him to the employer, and when  it
\n\t      is  once earned it is difficult to  understand
\n\t      why  it. should neceasarily be denied  to\t him
\n\t      whatever\tmay be, the nature of misconuct\t for
\n\t      his dismissal-Therefore we do, not. think that
\n\t      it would be possible to accede to the  general
\n\t      argument that in all cases where the &mice  of
\n\t      an  employee  is\tterminated  for\t  misconduct
\n\t      gratuity should riot be paid to him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  words  “why  it should necessarily\t be  denied  to\t him
\nwhatever  may be the nature of misconduct occurring  in\t the
\nearlier part of the passage and the words “general  argument
\nthat  in  all  cases where the service\tof  an\temployee  is
\nterminated  for misconduct gratuity should not be paid”\t and
\nthe  reference\tby  the\t Court to  certain  awards  made  by
\ntribunals  where  simple misconduct was\t distinguished\tfrom
\ngrave misconduct and forfeiture of gratuity
\n(1)[1967] 2 S.C.R. 596.\t\t  (2) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 307.
\n(3)  [1962] 2 S.C.R. 711.\n<\/p>\n
943<\/span><\/p>\n
was  provided  for the letter occurring after  this  passage
\nclearly
\nshow  firstly that the Court was dealing with  and  repelled
\nthe general proposition that without any distinction between
\nsimple\tand gross misconduct there should be  forfeiture  in
\nall cases of dismissal for misconduct of whatsoever  nature,
\nand  secondly,\tthat though the Court  approved\t the  scheme
\nwhich provided that gratuity should be paid after  deducting
\nfinancial loss resulting from the workman’s misconduct,\t the
\nCourt did not lay down any principle that gratuity should be
\npaid  in cases of grave misconduct involving  even  violence
\nwhich  though it may not result in financial damage may\t yet
\nbe more serious than the one which results in monetary loss.
\nThe  decision thus is not an authority for  the\t proposition
\nthat  even if a workman were guilty of misconduct,  such  as
\nriotous\t behaviour  or an assault on another  employee,\t in-
\ndustrial adjudication should not countenance a provision for
\nforfeiture of gratuity in such cases merely because it\tdoes
\nnot  result in monetary loss or that such a provision  would
\nbe  inconsistent with the principle that gratuity is  not  a
\nboon  or  a gratuitous payment but one which is\t earned\t for
\nlong and meritorious service.\n<\/p>\n
In  Motipur  Zamindari (P) Ltd. vs.   Workmen<\/a>(1)  the only
\nquestion  considered was whether the award was justified  in
\nproviding  forfeiture  of  gratuity  in\t a  case  where\t the
\nmisconduct  involved moral turpitude.  The  Court  following
\nGarment\t Cleaning  Works  ( 2 )\t directed  that\t instead  of
\nforfeiture,  the  clause  should provide  deduction  of\t the
\namount of monetary loss, if any, caused by such\t misconduct.
\nIt is clear that no one canvassed the question as to whether
\na  provision  in  a gratuity scheme that  a  workman  should
\nforfeit\t gratuity in the event of his committing  misconduct
\ninvolving violence or riotous behaviour within or around the
\nworks  premises would be justified or not.  Nor was it\tcon-
\nsidered\t whether  it  would  be\t anomalous  to\tprovide\t for
\nexaction  of  compensation from gratuity amount in  case  of
\nmisconduct  involving moral turpitude while not\t making\t any provi
\nsion  against misconduct, such as the use of  violence
\nor  force, which though not resulting in monetary loss,\t yet
\nis  unquestionably  of\ta  graver  nature.   The case\tof
\nEmployees  v.  Reserve\tBank of India<\/a>(3) was  again  a\tcase
\nwherethere  was\t a  general clause in  the  gratuity  scheme
\nproviding  forfeiture in cases of dismissal  for  misconduct
\nwhatsoever and where in view of the decision  in  Garment
\nCleaning  Works\t (2 )” the Bank conceded  to:substitute\t the
\nrule  by  providing deduction from gratuity  the  amount  of
\nmonetary  loss\toccasioned  by\tthe  misconduct\t for   which
\ndismissal  is  ordered.\t Thus, in none of the  cases  cited
\nbefore\tus  the question as to; what should be\tthe  minimum
\nqualifying period in cases of dismissal
\n(1) [1965] 2 L.L.J. 139.    (2)[1962].2 S.CR.,711.
\n(3)  [1966] 1 S.C.R. 25, at 58.\n<\/p>\n
944<\/span><\/p>\n
for  misconduct and the question as to whether\ta  provision
\nfor  forfeiture of gratuity in the event of  such  dismissal
\nhaving\tbeen ordered for misconduct involving violence\twere
\neither\tcanvassed  or considered.  On the other hand,  in  a
\nrecent decision between this very company and its workmen in
\nBangalore  region  (Remington Rand of India  Ltd.  v.  Their
\nWorkmen)<\/a>(1),  the  gratuity  scheme  made  by  the  Tribunal
\nprovided for a qualifying period in cases of termination  of
\nservice\t otherwise  than for misconduct, but  no  qualifying
\nperiod\twas provided for cases where termination of  service
\nwas  by\t way  of  punishment  for  misconduct.\t This  Court
\naccepted the objection of the company on the ground of\tthis
\nomission  and laid down the qualifying period of  15  years’
\nservice in such cases.\tIn this decision the Court  followed
\nthe earlier decision in Calcutta Insurance Co.(2) In another
\nsuch  case  (Remington Rand of India  vs.   The\t Workmen<\/a>(3),
\nwhere  the dispute concerned the workmen of the\t company  in
\nKerala\t region\t 15  years  service  was  provided  as\t the
\nqualifying period in cases of dismissal for misconduct.
\nIn  the\t case of Calcutta Insurance Co.(2) on  a  contention
\nhaving\tbeen raised that the qualifying period\tfor  earning
\ngratuity in cases of retirement and resignation should be 15
\nyears’\tservice\t and that no gratuity should be\t payable  in
\ncases  of dismissal for misconduct, the Court  examined\t the
\nearlier\t decisions  commencing\tfrom  the  Indian  Oxygen  &
\nAcetylene  Co.\tLtd.(4)\t to the\t case  of  Garment  Cleaning
\nWorks(5)   ‘and\t  registered  its   demurrer   against\t the
\nobservation  made  in the latter case that as  gratuity\t was
\nearned\tby an employee for long and meritorious service,  it
\nshould\tconsequently be available to him even though at\t the
\nend  of\t such  service\the may have  been  found  guilty  of
\nmisconduct  entailing his dismissal.  In so doing the  Court
\nat page 608 of the Report remarked :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  principle, it is difficult to  concur  in
\n\t      the above opinion.  Gratuity cannot be put  on
\n\t      the same level as wages.\tWe are inclined\t to
\n\t      think  that it is paid to a workman to  ensure
\n\t      good  conduct throughout the period he  serves
\n\t      the employer.  “Long and meritorious  service”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      must mean long and unbroken period of  service
\n\t      meritorious  to  the end.\t As  the  period  of
\n\t      service\tmust  be  unbroken,  so\t  must\t the
\n\t      continuity   of  meritorious  service   be   a
\n\t      condition\t  for  entitling  the\tworkman\t  to
\n\t      gratuity. if a workman commits such misconduct
\n\t      as causes financial loss to his employer,\t the
\n\t\t\t    employer  would  under the general law
\n  have\ta
\n\t      right of action against the employee for
\n\t      (1) [19681 1 L.L.J. 542.\t\t (2)  [1967]
\n\t      2 S.C.R. 596.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (3) [1968] 1 S.C.R. 164, at 168.\t (4)  (1956]
\n\t      1 L.L.J. 435.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (5) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 711.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t   945<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      the  loss\t caused and making a  provision\t for
\n\t      withholding  payment  of gratuity\t where\tsuch
\n\t      loss  caused to the employer does not seem  to
\n\t      aid  to the harmonious employment of  laborers
\n\t      or  workmen.  Further, the misconduct  may  be
\n\t      such  as\tto undermine the discipline  in\t the
\n\t      workers a case in which it would be  extremely
\n\t      difficult to assess the financial loss to\t the
\n\t      employer.”\n<\/p>\n
Continuity, in other words, must govern both the service and
\nits,  character\t of  meritoriousness.\tThe  Court   further
\nobserved that a mere provision in a gratuity scheme enabling
\nan  employer to, deduct from the gratuity amount the  actual
\nloss caused as a. result of misconduct for which the workmen
\nincurs\tthe  punishment\t of dismissal  or  discharge  cannot
\nsubserve  industrial peace and harmony, firstly, because  an
\nemployer  even without such a. provision has under  the\t law
\nthe right of action for claiming damages, a right not  taken
\naway by industrial law, and secondly,. because a  misconduct
\nresulting  in  dismissal  may  be  such\t as  may   undermine
\ndiscipline  in\tthe  workmen,  in which\t case  it  would  be
\nextremely  difficult  to  assess  the  financial  loss.\t  As
\nregards the qualifying period, the Court laid down 10  years
\nservice\t  in  cases,  of  resignation  or   retirement\t and
\n“following the principles laid down in the former  decisions
\nof this Court” provided 15 years’ service for qualifying for
\ngratuity in cases of dismissal for mis-conduct.
\nIn  the case of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (1)  an
\nobjection  was raised on behalf of the workmen to cl.  3  of
\nthe  gratuity  scheme framed by the Tribunal.\tThat  clause
\nprovided as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “On  termination\tof  service  on\t any  ground
\n\t      whatsoever except on the ground of  misconduct
\n\t      as in cl. 1 (a) and 1 (b) above.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Cl.  1 (a) and 1 (b) provided for\t payment  of
\n\t      gratuity\tin  the\t eventof  the  death  of  an
\n\t      employee\twhile  in service or  on  his  being
\n\t      physically  and  mentally\t incapacitated\t for
\n\t      further  service and’ laid down the rates\t and
\n\t      the qualifying periods as follows :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   After  5  years continuous\tservice\t and
\n\t      less than 10 years’ service-12 days’ wages for
\n\t      each completed year of service\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   After continuous service of 10  years-15
\n\t      days’   wages  for  each\tcompleted  year\t  of
\n\t      service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  effect  of\t cl.  3, therefore,  was  that\tin  case  of
\ntermination of service an employee would be entitled to\t get
\ngratuity at the above
\n(1)  C.A.  Nos.2168,  2569 of 1966 and 76, 123\tand  560  of
\n1967, decided on September 27, 1968.\n<\/p>\n
946<\/span><\/p>\n
rates  if he had put in service for the\t aforesaid  periods,
\nbut  would  forfeit  it if the termination was\tdue  to\t any
\nmisonduct  committed  by him.  The objection was  that\tthis
\nprovision  was inconsistent with the decisions so far  given
\nby  this Court, that according to those decisions  the\tonly
\nprovision  permissible\tto  the Tribunal was  to  enable  Ox
\nemployer  to  deduct  actual  monetary\tloss  arising\tfrom
\nmisconduct,  and that therefore, the mere fact that a  work-
\nman’s  service was terminated for misconduct was  no  ground
\nfor depriving him altogether of gratuity earned by him as a
\nresult of his long and meritorious service, until the  date,
\nwhen he commits such misconduct.  In examining, the validity
\nof this contention the Court analysed the previous decisions
\nand  pointed  out  that none of them  laid  down  a  general
\nprinciple,  that an industrial tribunal cannot\t_justifiably
\nprovide\t that an employer need not be made to  pay  gratuity
\neven where, the workman had incurred termination of  service
\non  account of his having committed misconduct,\t not  merely
\ntechnical but of a grave character.  The Court observed that
\nin  some decisions this Court, no doubt, had held  that\t the
\nfact  that dismissal of a workman on account of\t his  having
\ncommitted misconduct need not entail forfeiture and that  it
\nwould  be  sufficient  to  forfeit  partially  the  gratuity
\npayable to him to the extent of monetary loss caused to\t the
\nemployer.  But then no decision had laid down as a principle
\nthat  a provision for such forfeiture cannot  be  justified,
\nhowever\t grave\tthe misconduct may be, provided it  had\t not
\ncaused\tmonetary loss.\tThe Court noticed that the trend  in
\nthe  earlier  decisions was to deny gratuity  in  all  cases
\nwhere  the, workman’s service was terminated for  misconduct
\nbut  that  in  later  years in cases  such  as\tthe  Garment
\nCleaning Works(1) “a less rigid approach” was adopted.\t The
\nCourt then observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A   bare\t perusal  of  the  Schedule   (Model
\n\t      Standing\tOrders)\t shows that  the  expression
\n\t      “misconduct’  covers  a large  area  of  human
\n\t      conduct.\t On  the one hand arc  the  habitual
\n\t      late   attendance,  habitual  negligence\t and
\n\t      neglect of work on the other hand are  riotous
\n\t      or  disorderly behaviour during working  hours
\n\t      at the establishment or any act subversive  of
\n\t      discipline,    wilful    insubordination\t  or
\n\t      disobedience.    Misconduct   falling    under
\n\t      several  of these latter heads  of  misconduct
\n\t      may  involve no direct loss or damage  to\t the
\n\t      employer, but would render the functioning  of
\n\t      the  establishment  impossible  or   extremely
\n\t      hazardous.   For\tinstance,  assault  on\t the
\n\t      manager  of an establishment may not  directly
\n\t      involve  the, employer in any loss or  damage,
\n\t      which could be equated in terms of money,\t but
\n\t      it   would   render   the\t  working   of\t the
\n\t      establishment impossible.\t One may also
\n\t      (1)   [1962] 2 S.C.R. 711.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      947<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      envisage\t several  acts\tof  misconduct\t not
\n\t      directly\tinvolving the establishment  in\t any
\n\t      loss, but which are destructive of  discipline
\n\t      and cannot be tolerated.\tIn none of the cases
\n\t      cited  any detailed examination of  what\tmis-
\n\t      conduct  would  or would not  involve  to\t the
\n\t      employer loss capable of being compensated  in
\n\t      terms  of\t money\twas made.   It\twas  broadly
\n\t      stated  in  the cases which have\tcome  before
\n\t      this Court that notwithstanding dismissal\t for
\n\t      misconduct  a  workman  will  be\tentitled  to
\n\t      gratuity\tafter deducting the loss  occasioned
\n\t      to  the employer.\t If the cases cited  do\t not
\n\t      enunciate any broad principle we think that in
\n\t      the application of those cases as precedents a
\n\t      distinction  should be made between  technical
\n\t      misconduct   which   leaves   no\t trail\t of.
\n\t      indiscipline,  misconduct resulting in  damage
\n\t      to  the  employer’s  property,  which  may  be
\n\t      compensated by forfeiture of gratuity or\tpart
\n\t      thereof,\tand serious misconduct which  though
\n\t      not directly causing damage,, such as acts  of
\n\t      violence\tagainst\t the  management  or   other
\n\t      employees or riotous or disorderly  behaviour,
\n\t      in   or  near  the  place\t of  employment\t  is
\n\t      conducive\t to grave indiscipline.\t  The  first
\n\t      should  involve no forfeiture: the second\t may
\n\t      involve  forfeiture of an amount equal to\t the
\n\t      loss  directly  suffered by  the\temployer  in
\n\t      consequence  of the misconduct and  the  third
\n\t      may  entail forfeiture of gratuity due to\t the
\n\t      workmen.\tThe precedents of this Court,  e.g.,
\n\t      Wenger  & Co. v. Its Workmen<\/a>  [1963(2)  L.L.J.
\n\t      388],  Remington\tRand of\t India\tLtd.’s\tcase
\n\t      [1968(1) L.L.J. 542] and Motipur Zamindari (P)
\n\t      Ltd.’s case [1965(2) L.L.J. 139] do not compel
\n\t      us  to hold that no misconduct  however  grave
\n\t      may  be visited with forfeiture  of  gratuity.
\n\t      In  our  _judgment, the rule set out  by\tthis
\n\t      Court  in\t Wenger\t & Co.’s  case\tand  Motipur
\n\t      Zamindari\t (P)  Ltd.’s case  applies  only  to
\n\t      those  cases where there has be-en by  actions
\n\t      wailful  or negligent any loss  occasioned  to
\n\t      the  property of the employer and the  miscon-
\n\t      duct does not involve acts of violence against
\n\t      the management or other employees, or  riotous
\n\t      or  disorderly behaviour in or near the  place
\n\t      of employment.  In these exceptional cases-the
\n\t      third class of cases the employer may exercise
\n\t      the   right  to  forfeit\tgratuity;  to\thold
\n\t      otherwise would be to put a premium upon\tcon-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      duct    destructive    of\t   maintenance\t  of\n\t      discipline.\"\n<\/pre>\n
In  this  view, the Court modified cl. 3 of  the  scheme  by
\nadding\tan explanation, the effect of which was that  though
\nthe  employer could not deprive the workman of the  gratuity
\nin  all\t cases\tof  misconduct, he  could  do  so  where  it
\nconsisted of acts involving violence against the  management
\nor other ’employees or riotous
\n5Sup.Cl\/70-15
\n948<\/span>
\nor  disorderly behaviour in or near the place of  employment
\nand also gave right to the employer to deduct from  gratuity
\nsuch  amount  of  loss as is  occasioned  by  the  workman’s
\nmisconduct.  We may mention that the Court did not alter the
\nqualifying period in cases of misconduct since no  objection
\nappears to have been raised on that ground.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As  against  the contention that a provision  in  accordance
\nwith these two decisions should be introduced in the  scheme
\nunder  examination,  Mr. Ramamurthi submitted that  the\t two
\ndecisions  should  not\tbe construed as if  they  laid\tdown
\nprinciples which should have the cumulative effect, firstly,
\nas to the qualifying period, and secondly, as to deprivation
\nof gratuity in cases specified in the Delhi Cloth &  General
\nMills  case(1).\t It is true that this decision does not\t lay
\ndown  that  the\t qualifying period in  cases  of  misconduct
\nshould\tbe  15\tyears  as was  held  in\t Calcutta  Insurance
\nCompany(2).  But, as aforesaid, that was because that  ques-
\ntion  was  not raised, while in the Calcutta  Insurance\t Co.
\ncase(2) it was expressly raised and the Court laid down that
\nin  such  cases\t it  would be proper  to  provide  15  years
\ncontinuous service as a criterion.\n<\/p>\n
Once the principle that gratuity is paid to ensure good con-
\nduct  throughout  the  period that the\tworkman\t serves\t his
\nemployer  is  accepted as laid down  in\t Calcutta  Insurance
\nCo.(2)\tsome  distinction in the matter\t of  the  qualifying
\nperiod\tbetween cases of resignation and retirement  on\t the
\none  hand and dismissal for misconduct on the other  becomes
\nlogically necessary.  Such a distinction cannot legitimately
\nbe  assailed  as  unreasonable.\t Similarly,  if\t the  object
\nunderlying  schemes  of\t gratuity is  to  secure  industrial
\nharmony\t and satisfaction among workmen it is impossible  to
\nequate\tcases of death, physical incapacity, retirement\t and
\nresignation with cases of termination of service incurred on
\naccount of misconduct.\tBesides, a longer qualifying  period
\nin  the latter cases would ensure restraint against  wailful
\nuse of violence and force neglect etc.\tNo serious  argument
\nwas   advanced\tthat  such  a  distinction  would   not\t  be
\nreasonable.  The objection was against the insertion of both
\nand not against the merit of such distinction.
\nAs  regards the clause as to misconduct, it is not  possible
\nto  disagree  with the proposition laid down  in  the  Delhi
\nCloth  &  General  Mills case(-)  that acts  amounting\tto
\nmisconduct as defined in the standing orders, where they are
\nmade,\tor  the\t model\tstanding  orders,  where  they\t are
\napplicable, differ in degree of
\n(1)  11969] 2 S.C.R. 307.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  (19671 2 S.C.R. 596.\n<\/p>\n
949<\/span><\/p>\n
gravity, nature and their impact on the discipline and\t the
\nworking\t of  the  concern, and that though  grave  in  their
\nnature\tand  results,  all of them may not  result  in\tloss
\ncapable of being calculated in terms of money.\tAmongst them
\nthere  would  be some which would forthwith  disentitle\t the
\nworkman\t from  retaining his employment and  justifying\t his
\ndismissal.   For  the  reasons given in the  Delhi  Cloth  &
\nGeneral Mills’ case(1) with which we, with respect,  concur,
\nwe  must  agree\t with counsel for the  company\tthat  it  is
\nnecessary to modify the scheme and to add in cl. 5 thereof a
\nproviso\t that in cases where there has been  termination  of
\nservice\t on  account of an employee found guilty of  act  or
\nacts  involving\t violence against the  management  or  other
\nemployees or riotous or disorderly behaviour in or near\t the
\ncompany’s premises, the company would be entitled to forfeit
\nthe  gratuity  which  would  otherwise\tbe  payable  to\t the
\nconcerned  workman.  Cl. 5 should also be modified so as  to
\nintroduce  therein  15\tyears  continuous  service  as\t the
\nqualifying  period for earning gratuity in cases  where\t the
\nservice\t of the employee has been terminated on\t account  of
\nmisconduct  and that such gratuity should be payable at\t the
\nrate prescribed in cl. 3(d) of the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal  is allowed and the award is set  aside  to\t the
\nextent\taforesaid.  The gratuity scheme and the\t scheme\t for
\nmedical benefit, as revised by the Tribunal, are modified as
\nstated above.  So far as the question of hours is concerned,
\nthat  question is remanded to the Tribunal to decide  it  in
\naccordance  with  the observations  made  hereinabove.\t The
\nTribunal will give liberty to the parties to adduce for that
\npurpose\t such  further\tevidence as  they  think  necessary.
\nThere will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\t\t\t\t Appeal allowed.\n950<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 17 October, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1421, 1970 SCR (2) 935 Author: C Vaidyialingam Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A. PETITIONER: REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE WORKMEN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/10\/1969 BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. SHELAT, J.M. RAMASWAMY, K. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41770","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRemington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-06T12:05:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 17 October, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-06T12:05:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969\"},\"wordCount\":5688,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969\",\"name\":\"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-06T12:05:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 17 October, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-06T12:05:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 17 October, 1969","datePublished":"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-06T12:05:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969"},"wordCount":5688,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969","name":"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-06T12:05:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remington-rand-of-india-ltd-vs-the-workmen-on-17-october-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Remington Rand Of India Ltd vs The Workmen on 17 October, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41770","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41770"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41770\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41770"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41770"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41770"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}