General Manager, The Hindustan ... vs Amar Singh And Anr. on 28 May, 1971
Showing the contexts in which working journalist act doctypes: delhi appears in the document
(4) It appears that in an industrial Dispute between the appellant and its workmen (being Industrial Dispute No. 29 of 1959), the ageof retirement was fixed by the Industrial Tribunal at 55 years, but in appeal before the Supreme Court the age of retirement was raised to 58 years. In May 1963, respondent No. 1 reached the age of 58 years and retired from service. In the scheme of gratuity for the benefit of non-journalist staff (like respondent No. 1) the award had provided as under:--
second part of the decision of the Labour Court. The Labour Court had held that the mention of the word "wages" in the gratuity scheme included the total amount payable on account of pay and dearness allowance. In doing so, the Labour Court held that the words used in the scheme were "salary" or "wages". This means that the two words have the same meaning. The word "wages" has been defined in Section 2(rr) in the Industrial Disputes, Act. 1947 as meaning all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money and includes allowances such as dearness allowance. The same definition has been given to that word in the Payment of Wages Act, the Minimum Wages Act and other statutes where the word has been defined. The Labour Court therefore held that the gratuity is to be calculated on the total amount payable to a workman as pay and dearness allowance
being paid to the journalists by virture of the provisions of the Working Journalists(Conditions of Service) and Misc. Provisions Act, 1955 there was no gratuity scheme in the case of non-journalists in the same establishment. The union representing the workmen had suggested that they would be satisfied if the scheme in so far as it applied to journalists, was adopted for the non-journalists. The Tribunal had also before it the terms and conditions of the workmen employed by Messrs Bennet, Coleman & Company Limited where while granting gratuity it was specifically made clear that pay shall include only basic pay for this purpose and yet the Tribunal did not choose to so limit the award while making gratuity scheme in the present case.
learned Single Judge was of Bennet.Coleman& Co. Limited. In that case gratuity had been granted on the basis of basic wages and not consolidated wages. There was also no evidence about the fiourshing nature of the concern and the enormous profits it was making. There was also no evidence of reserves built up by the concern and all that was stated was that gratuity was being paid to journalist on the basis of consolidated wages. If the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge wanted to base their decision on the flourishing nature of the concern and other matters they should have said so and evidence should have been called in that behalf. The Labour Court however went into the definition of wages in the Industrial Disputes act. 1947 and so it seems, was done by the learned Single Judge,for it was observed that the award not having limited the meaning of wages to mean basic wages, there was no reason why the definition of the word wages as including all wages be not accepted. It appears to us that there an error in the approach of the learned Single Judge for a reference to paras
second part of the decision of the Labour Court. The Labour Court had held that the mention of the word "wages" in the gratuity scheme included the total amount payable on account of pay and dearness allowance. In doing so, the Labour Court held that the words used in the scheme were "salary" or "wages". This means that the two words have the same meaning. The word "wages" has been defined in Section 2(rr) in the Industrial Disputes, Act. 1947 as meaning all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money and includes allowances such as dearness allowance. The same definition has been given to that word in the Payment of Wages Act, the Minimum Wages Act and other statutes where the word has been defined. The Labour Court therefore held that the gratuity is to be calculated on the total amount payable to a workman as pay and dearness allowance
being paid to the journalists by virture of the provisions of the Working Journalists(Conditions of Service) and Misc. Provisions Act, 1955 there was no gratuity scheme in the case of non-journalists in the same establishment. The union representing the workmen had suggested that they would be satisfied if the scheme in so far as it applied to journalists, was adopted for the non-journalists. The Tribunal had also before it the terms and conditions of the workmen employed by Messrs Bennet, Coleman & Company Limited where while granting gratuity it was specifically made clear that pay shall include only basic pay for this purpose and yet the Tribunal did not choose to so limit the award while making gratuity scheme in the present case.
learned Single Judge was of Bennet.Coleman& Co. Limited. In that case gratuity had been granted on the basis of basic wages and not consolidated wages. There was also no evidence about the fiourshing nature of the concern and the enormous profits it was making. There was also no evidence of reserves built up by the concern and all that was stated was that gratuity was being paid to journalist on the basis of consolidated wages. If the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge wanted to base their decision on the flourishing nature of the concern and other matters they should have said so and evidence should have been called in that behalf. The Labour Court however went into the definition of wages in the Industrial Disputes act. 1947 and so it seems, was done by the learned Single Judge,for it was observed that the award not having limited the meaning of wages to mean basic wages, there was no reason why the definition of the word wages as including all wages be not accepted. It appears to us that there an error in the approach of the learned Single Judge for a reference to paras
No comments:
Post a Comment