# ANR v. INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (BOMBAY) EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS

- **Citation:** [1978] 3 S.C.R. 473
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-03-10
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/anr-v-indian-express-newspapers-bombay-employees-union-ors-7350
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-fnterjerencc by Supreme Court 011 the
merits in an appeal against an industrial award--Construction of the language
of a reference-Whether the reference in the instant
~ase, included the ptanouncernent upon gratuity" to non-journalists by the Tnbunal.
The Central Government rnrde a reference to the Industrial Tribunal in the
following terms :
"\Vhelher the recommendations of the \Vage Board for non-journali'it
employees as accepted by Government by its Resolution No. \VB-171 7 .'
67, dated the 18th Noven1ber, 1967, are ·unfair or unreasonable and 1f
so, what modifications ~re reguired th~rein to ensure a .fair and j_ust wage
structure for the non-iournahsts, having due regard to the paying capacity of the respective newspaper establishment, the e_mployer's agreement
and the emoluments of employees engaged in comparable cstablish1nents."
The National Tribunal gave an award covering many topics including gratuity.
All the ne\vspaper establishments, but one namely, the
appellant, had tTuflen
in line and left the award unChallenged. The appellant, however, challenged the
very jurisdiction of the Tribunal to pronounce upon "gratuity", on the ground
that it falls outside the reference itself.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Industrial jurispn1dence is not static, rigid or textually cold, but
dynamic, burgeoning and warm with life.
It answers in en1phatic negative the
biblical interrogation; "what man is there of you, who if his son ask bread,
will give him a stone ?" The Industrial Tribunal of India in areas unoccupied
by precise black letter la.w, go by the Constitutional mandate of ~ocial justice
in the claims of the 'little people'.
[475 D-E]
B
c
D
E
2. It is not as if the Supreme Court of India shall not go back upon what
F
was throughout understood by all before the Tribunal. The jurisdictional justification must be found in the Refere'Ilce itself, not it;l_
the
brooding,
perhaps
blundering, consciousness of litigants,
liberality, not 1pendantry,
~111iding tht
construction of _the language of the reference. [ 476 B~C]
Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Workers and Staff [1963] 3 ~CR
p. 540@ 555 followed.
3. "fhis Court lends no countenance 'to submission on the merits in the
G
absence o fftagrant violation of principles, gross travesty of justice and like
extreme grounds, especially when the appeal is against an Award by an I•Jdustial Tribunal.
[481 B-C]
4. 'Gratuity' and its quantum, like other retirement benefits, has a bearing
on the wage structure and vice versa. It is true that the wage strL1ctur(: 1clates
to the en1oluments during service, while gratuity is a terminal benefit or, rather,
a retirement benefit. Although these two fall i'!lto different compartment<; they
are inter-connected. A heavy wage scale may hcNe same impact on the gratuity
H
rate and a large .provision for gratuity may have its retroactive effect upon the
wage structure. It is composite equity writ on the economic life of the "\\·orker.
[47"1 G-H, 478 Al
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
A
In the instaint case : ·-
B
5. (a) It is proved beyond re<>aonab!e doubt that the parties 0\1 both sides,
at the level of pleadings, at the stage of arguments and in the rival process of
contest, desiderated a decision ot.1 a gratuity scheme for non-journalists. Item 1
of the Schedule of the Reference, the proceedings before the Tribunal and the
reasooing in the Award cc\1verge to the only conclusion reasonably a.vailable
that the gratuity scheme for non-journalist workmen was
covered
by
the
reference.
r478 H, 480 E-F, 481 A]
c
D
E
F
G
H
(b) The Tribunal was well within its
jurisdiction in deciding on 'g:ratutty'.
The Wage Board has made recommendations on gratuity (paragra.ph 4.28).
Indeed, item 2 of the reference to the Wage Board which covers non-journalist
employees involves gratuity. The management in it." written statement before
the Tribunal has contended that there was no justification for the W

## Text

•
)
•
•
•
473
INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (BOMB/\ YJ (PVT.) LrD. &
A
ANR.
v.
INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (BOMBAY) EMPLOYEES
UNION & ORS .
March 10, 1978
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136-fnterjerencc by Supreme Court 011 the
merits in an appeal against an industrial award--Construction of the language
of a reference-Whether the reference in the instant
~ase, included the ptanouncernent upon gratuity" to non-journalists by the Tnbunal.
The Central Government rnrde a reference to the Industrial Tribunal in the
following terms :
"\Vhelher the recommendations of the \Vage Board for non-journali'it
employees as accepted by Government by its Resolution No. \VB-171 7 .'
67, dated the 18th Noven1ber, 1967, are ·unfair or unreasonable and 1f
so, what modifications ~re reguired th~rein to ensure a .fair and j_ust wage
structure for the non-iournahsts, having due regard to the paying capacity of the respective newspaper establishment, the e_mployer's agreement
and the emoluments of employees engaged in comparable cstablish1nents."
The National Tribunal gave an award covering many topics including gratuity.
All the ne\vspaper establishments, but one namely, the
appellant, had tTuflen
in line and left the award unChallenged. The appellant, however, challenged the
very jurisdiction of the Tribunal to pronounce upon "gratuity", on the ground
that it falls outside the reference itself.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Industrial jurispn1dence is not static, rigid or textually cold, but
dynamic, burgeoning and warm with life.
It answers in en1phatic negative the
biblical interrogation; "what man is there of you, who if his son ask bread,
will give him a stone ?" The Industrial Tribunal of India in areas unoccupied
by precise black letter la.w, go by the Constitutional mandate of ~ocial justice
in the claims of the 'little people'.
[475 D-E]
B
c
D
E
2. It is not as if the Supreme Court of India shall not go back upon what
F
was throughout understood by all before the Tribunal. The jurisdictional justification must be found in the Refere'Ilce itself, not it;l_
the
brooding,
perhaps
blundering, consciousness of litigants,
liberality, not 1pendantry,
~111iding tht
construction of _the language of the reference. [ 476 B~C]
Management of Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Workers and Staff [1963] 3 ~CR
p. 540@ 555 followed.
3. "fhis Court lends no countenance 'to submission on the merits in the
G
absence o fftagrant violation of principles, gross travesty of justice and like
extreme grounds, especially when the appeal is against an Award by an I•Jdustial Tribunal.
[481 B-C]
4. 'Gratuity' and its quantum, like other retirement benefits, has a bearing
on the wage structure and vice versa. It is true that the wage strL1ctur(: 1clates
to the en1oluments during service, while gratuity is a terminal benefit or, rather,
a retirement benefit. Although these two fall i'!lto different compartment<; they
are inter-connected. A heavy wage scale may hcNe same impact on the gratuity
H
rate and a large .provision for gratuity may have its retroactive effect upon the
wage structure. It is composite equity writ on the economic life of the "\\·orker.
[47"1 G-H, 478 Al
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
A
In the instaint case : ·-
B
5. (a) It is proved beyond re<>aonab!e doubt that the parties 0\1 both sides,
at the level of pleadings, at the stage of arguments and in the rival process of
contest, desiderated a decision ot.1 a gratuity scheme for non-journalists. Item 1
of the Schedule of the Reference, the proceedings before the Tribunal and the
reasooing in the Award cc\1verge to the only conclusion reasonably a.vailable
that the gratuity scheme for non-journalist workmen was
covered
by
the
reference.
r478 H, 480 E-F, 481 A]
c
D
E
F
G
H
(b) The Tribunal was well within its
jurisdiction in deciding on 'g:ratutty'.
The Wage Board has made recommendations on gratuity (paragra.ph 4.28).
Indeed, item 2 of the reference to the Wage Board which covers non-journalist
employees involves gratuity. The management in it." written statement before
the Tribunal has contended that there was no justification for the Wage Board
to apply the gratuity scheme as applicable to working journalists, to all the nonjournalist employees.
All these lead to the only cc•.1clusion that the 5cheme of
gratuity recon1mended by the Wage Board was before the Tribunal for revision
or n1odificntion.
[478 B-C-G]
(d) The Tribunal's duty to decide a matter referred to it, could not be
repelled 111erely because there was no separate plea by one of the many workn1en's groups about gratuity; and [478 G]
( e) The recomn1endations made by the Wage Board and accepted by 1 he
Government admittedly ~iaclude gn·.tuity.
The Tribunal has, ex-necessitatt., to
decide \Vhether this recommendation on gratuity is unjust and unreas(lnable.
This is what it has done.
Secondly, it has to
examine what
modifications,
if any, are justly necessary therein, i.e., in the \Vage Board gratuity.
This,
again, is \.Vhat has been undertaken by the 'fribunal.
[477 C-El
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 530-32/71
(Appeals from the Award dt. the
15th of July, 1970 of
the
National Tribunal Calcutta in References Nos. NIT-1 of 1968, NIT-2
of 1968 and NlT-1 of 1969 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary dt. the 3-8-70)
G. B. Pai, 0. C. Mathur & D. N. Mishra
For the Appellant
M. K. Ramamurthi, J. Ramamurthi & R. Vaigai
For Respondent No. 1 (a) in both the Appeals.
0. P. Rana : For Respondent No. 1 in CA No. 530/71.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-A free press can summon its flaming vigour
only if its journalistic and non-journalistic wings go into full swing
with courage and contentment to make the printed end product that
issues daily from the machine, so that the office of education and information the Fourth Estate must perform does not suffer. The community itself has vital concern in the working conditions of the dual
human groups whose invisible work i~ crystallised daily and moved
into mass circulation. In a democracy, news media and the men
behind have a special value.
Therefore, a few legislative and nonlegislative measures have taken care of the working conditions of the
-
•
•
'
"
"'\ •
INDIAN EXPRESS v. EMPLOYEES UNION (Krishna Iyer, !.)
4 75
journalists and the non-journalists.
We are concerned here with nonjournalists and that portion of an award which has conferred standardised grat_uity benefit on them.
The importance of the enthusiasm, integrity ann thoroughness of
the silent army, which speaks daily in every issue of a newspaper,
once underscored, the necessity for a square economic deal to these
hands argues itself.
A Free Press serves the nation successfully when
it serves its family fairly.
Even an army marches on its stomacb.
And retirement benefits bear upon anxiety for the aging future in this
mortal world and impact upon contentment in the working life. Such
is the law of the tenses and the human lot.
Pressmen are no exception.
This national
concern quickened the . Government lo make a
reference to the Industrial Tribunal of certain questions of economic
justice concerning non-journalist emplqyees.
The issues
between
leading members of the Press Proprietariat and the non-journalist Proletariat were spelt out for adjudication in a Reference and lack of
clarity in its drafting has led to the bone of contention in this appeal.
Perfunctory draftsmanship has a great potential for creating disputes
even where there are none ! This is Government's unwitting contribution to the present litigation!
The National Tribunal assisted by
considerable submissions from learned counsel, produced a massive
award covering many topics, including gratuity, and all but one establishment viz., the appellant, have fallen in line and left the award
unchallenged.
The broad approach of the Tribunal vis-a-vis gratuity
is coloured by social justice and informed by indicia gathered from
this Court's dicta.
Industrial jurisprudence is not static, rigid or
textually cold but dynamic,
burgeoning and
warm with
life.
It
answers in emphatic negative the biblical interrogation : "What man
is there of you who if hjs son a'sk bread, \Vill give hin1 a, stone ?"
The Industrial Tribunals of India, in areas unoccupied by precise black
letter law, go by the constitutional mandate of social justice in the
claims of the 'little p<;ople'.
That touchstone led to the award which
inter alia, granted gratuity to non-journalists altho' the positive evidence was little and the guidelines faint.
The compass of the acrife
dispute in this appeal is the very jurisdiction of the tribunal to pronounce upon 'gratuity', the ground urged being that it falls outside
the reference itself .
We may now set out the relevant reference to the National Tribunal :
"Whether the recommendations of the Wage Board for
non-jou;na!ist employees as accepted by Government by its
Resolut10n No .. WB-17(7)/67, dated the 18th November,
1967, are unfarr or unreasonable and if so what modifications are required the!ein t~ ensure. a fai; and just wage
stru~ture for. the non-ionrnalists, havmg due regard to the
paymg capac!ty of the respective newspaper establishments.
the employer s agreement and the emoluments of employees
engaged in comparable establishments."
A
B
c
E.
F
G
H
A
B
c
•
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978\ 3 S.C.R
Mr. G. B. Pai in his very persuasive and pointed submission, rightly
stressed that the Tribunal had only a limited jurisdiction, trammelled
by the terms of reference--not beyond, and ip. his view the question
of gratuity was outside the reference altogether.
Were 1t
s~, that
part of the award was an e,;,:ercise in gratuitous
futility, being an
ultra-jurisdicti~nal gener'JSity.
Notwithstanding Sri M. K. Ramamurthy's assertion that illis Court shall not go
back upon what
was
throughout unc!;,rstood by all before the Tribunal, we have to find
jurisdictior:ai justification in the Reference itself, not in the brooding,
perhaps blundering, consciousness of litigants.
Bv.t we agree with Sri
Ramamurthy that liberality, not pedantry, must guide the construction
of the language of the reference (vide Management of Express News
Papers v. Workers & Staff(') Once the real controversy is clear, the
verbal walls cannot narrow the natural ambit of the subject-matter;
especially in an equitable· jurisdiction unbound by processual blinliers
and niceties of pleading.
Let us therefore face the only issue in the appeal-110 other argument was urged-whether the reference embraces gratuity.
If it does
not, no more arguments can salvage; If it does, no more submission
can scuttle.
So the forensic focus must turn on the first terin of
D
reference which, on a closer look, calls into three parts.
This trichotomy once grasped, the riddle of the case stands resolved.
E
F
G
H
The pre-amble to the re.ference sets the tone and lends the key
and so a relevant excerpt may lead kindly light :
"Whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that
an industrial dispute exist between the employers and workmen in the newspaper establishments mentioned in the Annexure, in respect of the implementation of the recommendations of the Wage Eoard for non-journalist employees, as
accepted by the Central Government by the Resolution No.
WR-17(7)/67, dated the 18th November, 1967, in regard
to the matter mentioned in the Schedule."
It is plain that the Central Government was anxious to have the
industrial dispute between the employers and non-journalist employees
settled.
What the industrial dispute that existed and needed solution
was, could be dimly gathered from the 'Whereas' clause extracted above.
The dispute was 'in respect of the implementation of the recommendations of the Wage Board for non-journalist employees' as accepted
by the Central Government by its resolution of November 18, 1967,
'in regard to matters mentioned in the Schedule'. So, the area of the
dispute is prima facie, co-extensive with the recommendations of the
Wage Board for non-journalist employees and the topics
covered
thereby, •particularised in the Schedule to the Reference. It is common
ground that the recommendations of the Wage Board for non-journalist employees did cover gratuity. Of course, the 'Whereas' clause is
not conclusive but suggestive. We have actually to go to the Schedule
which specificates the actual dispute referred for adjudication.
The
(I) [1963] 3 $.C.R. 540 @ 555.
• '
• )
•
•
INDIAN EXPRESS V. EMPLOYEES UNION (Krishna Iyer, J.) 4 7 7
anatomy of item 1 of the Schedule has now to be X-rayed. We have
A
earlier quoted it, and its triple components may now be separated.
The :li.rst and the second part§ are substantive and read thus :
(a) Whether the recommendations of the Wage Board for
non-journalist employees as accepted by Government
by it& Resolution .......... are unfair or unreasonable; and
(b) If so, what modifications are required therein ?
The third part is not a point for adjudication but a goal-setter, a
delineation of the overall objective or rather the parameter which must
be kept in view. That is to say, the Tribunal must first adjudicate on
the unfairness or unreasonableness of the recommendations of the
Wage Board, as accepted by the Government. It must further adjudicate on what modifications are required in these recommendations,
if it holds them unfair or unreasonable. To sum up the essentials of
the first term of reference and its scope, we think that the jurisdictional sweep of the Tribunal is governed by the two parts we have set
out.
The recommendations made by the Wage Board and accepted
by the Government admittedly include gratuity.
The Tribunal bas,
ex necessitate, to decide whether this recommendation on gratuity is
unjust or unreasonable.
This is what it has done.
Secondly, it has
to examine what modifications, if any, are justly necessary therein,
i.e., in the Wage Board gratuity. This, again, is what has been undertaken by the Tribunal. In this view the next question is, wllat the purpose of the third limb of the reference can be.
This is the bone of
contention, in one sense, between the two advocates. Certainly, it is
not otiose and has a role. In our view, it merely supplies the social
objective of the adjudication on parts 1 & 2. It surely obligates the
Tribunal, while deciding points 1 & 2, to have a specific perspective.
That perspective is that the non-journalist employees must be ensured
a fair and just wage structure, having due regard to the paying capacity of the establishment, the emoluments of employees in comparable concerns etc. "A fair and just wage structure" is not what the
Tribunal is asked to decide under the first term of reference. Under
this head it is called upon to decide only two matters. namely, the
fairness/reasonableness or otherwise of the Wage Board's recommendations regarding gratuity, and, in the event of those
recommendations being found to be unfair or unreasonable, to decide what
modifications are required 'therein'? These modifications are geared
to a certain goal, are calculated to subserve certain purpose, are intended to be oriented on a certain welfare ground norm.
What is
that goal, that objective, that perspective ? This is 'supplied bv the
last part of reference No. 1. That is to say, the Tribunal will adjudicate on the frrst two items, remembering that the end is the securing of
a fair and just wage structure. Indeed, gratuity and its quantum. like
other retirement benefits. has a bearing on the wage structure and vice
versa.
It is true that the wage structure relates to the emoluments
during service, while gratuity is a terminal benefit or, rather, a retirement benefit.
Although these two fall into different compartments,
13-277SCI /78
B
c
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
they are inter-connected. A heavy wage scale may have some impact
on the gratuity rate and a large provision for gratuity may have its
retroactive effect upon the wage structure.
It is composite equity
writ on the economic life of the worker.
We have said enough to
indicate that the Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction in deciding
on 'gratunity', the function of the last limb, 'a fair and just wage structure', being to shape the size of the gratuity, not to exclude gratuity
fron1 adjudication, to tailor it, not to throw it out.
This construction receives considerable comfirmation from certain
other aspects of the case. For instance, the wage Board has made
recommendations on gratuity (paragraph 4.28).
Indeed, item 2 of
the reference to the Wage Board which covers non-journalist employees involves gratuity. The vital documents which impregmte the
reference with content and meaning are the reference to the Wage
Board and the recommendations that followed, and both of them deal ·
with gratuity.
We have more internal evidence to substantiate the
soundness of our conclusion. The management, in its Written Statement before the Tribunal, has contended that "there was no justification for the Wage Board to apply the gratuity scheme as applicable to working journalists, to all the non-journalist employees. The
special benefits conferred upon the Working Journalists under Act 45
of 1955 are highly excessive and unreasonable and in fact, the Working Journalists have been treated as a favoured dass. There is no
other class of employees in the country for whom such a legislation
has been enacted. It should have been left to each newspaper establishment to evolve its own Scheme of gratuity, if the
circumstances so permit and in accordance with its financial position and a
scheme of gratuity applicable to a particular highly paid class of employees should not have been extended to all non-journalist employees."
Why did the management contend before the Tribunal that the Wage
Board recommendation of gratuity scheme for non-journalist employees
was unjustified? Why did they plead that those special benefits were
excessive and unreasonable ? Why should they have urged that it
should have been left to each newspaper establishment to evolve its
own scheme of gratuity and that such a scheme should not have been
extended to non-journalist employees since they were highly paid?
There is no explanation for this stance except that the management
was trying to convince the Tribunal that the Wage Board recommendation of gratuity was 'unjust' and 'unreasonable', which means that
they also understood that the scheme of gratuity recommended by
the Wage Board was before the Tribunal for revision or modification.
Shri G. B. Pai urged that the workmen's
statement contained
no reference to gratuity. Maybe, they did not separately set up such
a plea because others of their ilk in other newspaper establishment
had oleaded it. The Tribunal's duty to decide a matter referred to it
could not be repelled merely because there was no separate plea by
one of the many workmen's groups about gratuity.
There is oither telling testimony that au the parties had proceeded
on the clear footing that gratuitv was covered by the terms of reference.
Shri M. K. Ramamurthy took us meticulously through the
•
•
• ' I
' •
..
INDIAN EXPRESS v. EMPLOYEES UNION (Krishna Iyer, !.)
479
bulky award which covered six leading Newspaper establishments of
India and the workmen under them. Paragraph 16, for
example,
while quoting the Wage Board recommendations, refers to gratuity to
Ron-journalist employees.
Similarly we find in paragraph 9i, a
specific plea by the workmen, represented by The Hindustan Times
Employees Union, having a bearing on the gratuity scheme. Again
in paragraph 114 the Tribunal refers to the contentio!J of Mr. Sen,
representing one of the
newspaper
establishment, criticising the
gratuity recommendation of the Wage Board as unfair and Mr. Ramamurthy's contrary stand that the gratuity scheme should apply
to
journalists and non-journalists alike.
Many other such references to
arguments by counsel before the Tribunal, with pointed reference to
the application of gratuity scheme to non-journalist employees were
spotlighted.
We may mention a few illustratively.
Paragraph 121
refers to the Written Statement of certain newspaper establishment
giving reasons why payment of gratuity should not be made applicable to non-journalist employees. Kindly look likewise at paragraph
140. It is interesting that on behalf of the workmen i.e., (Indian Express Employees Union) : it is stated : "Moreover, no fringe benefits are also available to the workmen of the Indian Express in Delhi.
Even gratuity which has been unanimously recommendable by
the
Wage Board and was never a point of dispute, is being denied to the
workmen.'' The award in paragraph 163 and in paragraph 170, proceeds on the footiug that the management also made common cause
against the gratuity scheme for non-journalist employees.
Such doubts as may exist on this question are cleared by the
Tribunal in paragraph 186, which reads thus :
"Having thus cleared the grounds of the
preliminary
objections, I now proceed to deliver my award on merits.
I first take np for consideration the first item of dispute in
the reference, dated September 17, 1968, whlch again is the
first item of dispute in the schedule of the Reference, dated
October 7, 1968, and also the first item of dispute in the
schedule to the order of reference dated March 7, 1969.
The following may be taken to be the broad lines of criticism by the management agal 'ISi the recommendations of
Wage Board:
(i) .......
(ii) . . .. " .
(iii) .... . . . .
(iv) ........
(v) ........
(vi) ..... . .
(vii) Gratuity should not have been left to the decision of
the Supreme Court in the pending appeiii regarding
gratuity scheme applicable to Working Journalists,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
..
480
SUPREME COURT ~EPORTS
(1978] 3 S.C.N.
(viii)
(ix)
ai; per the provii;ioni; contained in the
Working
Journalists (Condition of Service) and Mi11cellane0us
Provisions Act,1955, because in that
appeal
tile
pre•ent disputants are not parties.
So no remonstrance against consideration of the issue of gratuity as.
a jurisdictional issue is raised there.
Having discussed the arguments of counsel on both sides and
having dealt with various points of reference, the learned Presiding
Officer went on to consider the scheme of gratuity.
Of course, he
mentioned the Jack of evidence for a precise judgment and the
absence of help from either side to reach a reasoned conclusion :
"My task is made more difficult because little evidence
was led as to what should be the gratuity scheme for nonjournalist workmen. It was not to the interest of the
management to lead evidence because they would like verY'
much to await the final decii;ion of the Supreme Court on
the point. The workmen had no concrete suggestion
to
offer.
I have, therefore, to essay into unsurveyed expanse
with neither a compass nor a guide. All that I can do is to·
bear in mind the observations by the Supreme Court, on this
topic, from time to time made and to attempt a gratuity
scheme within the framework of those observations."
Naturally, and, if we may say so rightly, the Tribunal sought guidance
from the principles laid down by this Court on a blue-print for
gratuity.
This longish discussion on gratuity could not have been a fruitless
· excursion and proves beyond reasonable doubt that the parties on
both sides, at the level of pleadings, at the stage of argument and in·
the rival processes of contest, desiderated a decision on a gratuity
scheme for non-journalists.
This bone of con~ntion was
included
in the terms of reference (item 1). The Jong submissions by many
counsel on behalf of the employers and employees were not idle
debate.
The plea for a full scheme of gratuity by the advocate for
the workmen under the various other newspaper establishments was
not submissions in supererogation. There is no hint in the Tribunal
proceedings that a scheme of gratuity was outside the pale of the
Tribunal. No such objection was ever raised. Indeed, a tired Tribunal, confronted by enormous evidence and
marathon
arguments,
would not have painstakingly sifted the grounds, sorted the evidence.
cited the rulings and recorded the verdicts without being sure that air
parties concerned and he himself understood the reference to include
the matters contested before him. discussed by him and decided in·
his award. The gratuity scheme for non-journalist workmen was one
such and it is bafflement to accept the submission that the learned
Tribunal, a retired judge of the High Court had ventured into an
irrelevant terrain.
•
• \
-
•
I
~
\
, ..
INDIAN EXPRESS v. EMPLOYEES UNION (Krishna Tyer, 1.)
481
Thus, our uuderstauding of item I in the Schedule of Reference,
our study of the proceedings before the Tribunal and the reasoning
in the Award converge to the only c6nclusion reasonably available
that the gra~uity scheme for non-journalist workmen was covered by
the reference.
No other point on the merits was argued although
there was a feeble suggestion that the Award was more liberal than
should reasonably have been. In fairness, we must state that barring
a passing reference to this aspect, no serious contention was raised or,
indeed, could be raised on the merits of the matter. This court lends
no countenance to submissions on the merits in the absence of flagrant
violation of principles,
gross travesty of justice and like
extreme
grounds, especially when the appeal is against an Award by an Industrial Tribunal. In short, Sri G.B. Pai would not and could not canvass
the factual finding. The appeals are dismissed with costs of Respondent 1A. The order dated 30-3-1971 regarding payment of interest will
be made part of this judgment.
S.R.
Appeals dismissed.
A
B
c