- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Management Of Tournamulla Estate v. Workmen
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent workman was charge-sheeted for riotous and disorderly behaviour arising from an assault on a tea-maker, Shri U.R.M. Abdul Kader, inside the factory on 29 May 1965. A domestic enquiry, in which the workman was given full opportunity to participate, found him guilty of the alleged misconduct, leading to his dismissal.
The estate had a contractual gratuity scheme. Clause 4 of the “Terms of Agreement” required that any dispute regarding gratuity payable to a dismissed workman be referred to the Labour Court having jurisdiction. When the management refused to pay gratuity, the matter was taken to the Labour Court, Quilon (Kerala). The Labour Court ruled in favour of the workman. The management obtained special-leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an employee dismissed for riotous and disorderly conduct that involved violence against another employee is entitled to receive contractual gratuity.
- Whether the Labour Court erred in awarding gratuity despite a finding of serious misconduct.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Management)
- The workman’s misconduct was of a “serious” nature—riotous and violent—falling within the third category identified in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, thereby justifying total forfeiture of gratuity.
- The gratuity scheme itself contemplates denial of the benefit in the event of dismissal for misconduct; therefore, the Labour Court’s award was contrary to contractual terms and established precedent.
Respondent (Workman/Union)
- The misconduct did not involve moral turpitude or financial loss to the employer and therefore should not disentitle the workman from gratuity.
- Even if misconduct were assumed, the Labour Court failed to analyse its nature and degree; hence, the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Suraj Prakash Kapur, AIR 1963 SC 507 | Rejected a blanket rule that gratuity is forfeited in every case of dismissal for misconduct. | Labour Court relied on this case, but the Supreme Court distinguished it, noting that serious, violent misconduct is treated differently. |
| Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1970 SC 919 | Classified misconduct into three categories; held that “serious” misconduct involving violence or grave indiscipline justifies complete forfeiture of gratuity. | The Court treated the respondent’s assault as “serious misconduct” under category 3 and applied the rule of total forfeiture. |
| Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. Workmen, (1969) 3 SCC 913 | Affirmed that misconduct affecting discipline may warrant forfeiture or limitation of gratuity benefits. | Cited to reinforce that violent misconduct merits a harsher approach toward gratuity entitlement. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The facts of the assault and riotous behaviour were undisputed before the Labour Court and on appeal. The Supreme Court therefore declined to remit the matter for fresh findings.
2. Relying on Delhi Cloth and General Mills, the Court reiterated the tripartite classification of misconduct and emphasised that category 3—serious misconduct involving violence or grave indiscipline—permits total forfeiture of gratuity.
3. The respondent’s conduct squarely fell within this third category: it involved assault and riotous behaviour on the employer’s premises, conduct “conducive to grave indiscipline.”
4. Although not directly applicable, Section 4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act—which mandates forfeiture where services are terminated for riotous or violent conduct—reflects the same public-policy rationale and reinforces the principle laid down in earlier case-law.
5. The Labour Court’s reliance on Suraj Prakash Kapur was misplaced because that decision did not concern violent misconduct of the present kind. Consequently, the award granting gratuity could not stand.
Holding and Implications
Appeal allowed; Labour Court award set aside. The respondent workman is not entitled to any gratuity. Costs were awarded to the management in accordance with the Court’s prior order dated 1 February 1968.
Implications: The decision re-affirms that violent or riotous misconduct by an employee can lead to total forfeiture of gratuity, in line with both contractual schemes and statutory policy. It strengthens the authority of Delhi Cloth and General Mills and harmonises judicial reasoning with Section 4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, without announcing a new legal doctrine.
Grover, J.— This is an appeal by special leave from an award of the Labour Court, Quilon (Kerala State).
2. The point before us is simple. The workman concerned was charge-sheeted in respect of riotous and disorderly behaviour for having assaulted a tea maker Shri U.R.M Abdul Kader on May 29, 1965, inside the factory. A departmental enquiry was held wherein, it is said, he was given every opportunity to fully participate. He was found guilty of misconduct by the domestic tribunal and was accordingly dismissed. There was a scheme of gratuity in force which was and is not challenged by the respondent. Clause 4 of that scheme, which is called “Terms of Agreement”, provides that if a dispute arises regarding a claim for payment of gratuity of a workman who has been dismissed for misconduct, such a dispute shall be referred to the Labour Court having jurisdiction, for decision. As a dispute arose with regard to the payment of gratuity, the matter was referred to the Labour Court. Before that Court, in the statement of case submitted by the Secretary of the Malabar Estate Workers' Union, it was stated in clause (c) as follows:
“The worker was not paid gratuity on dismissal, in spite of making a request for the same. There is a gratuity scheme applicable to this estate and as per the terms of the scheme if a dispute arises regarding the payment of gratuity to a dismissed workman, the same is left open to be decided by this Court. The allegations of misconduct levelled against the worker in this case cannot be considered to be one which by its nature disentitles the worker to claim gratuity. Even if the allegation is true the same does not involve any question of moral turpitude or cause any financial loss to the company. Any allegations of misconduct do not impose (sic) disentitle the workmen for gratuity. Hence in this particular case it is submitted that the worker is entitled for gratuity as claimed. The worker has put in 18 years of service and as such he is entitled to get at the rate of 15 days wages based on last draw wage rate for every completed year of service.”
3. In reply, which was filed by the management, the facts which have been set out above and the circumstances in which the dismissal was directed, were fully given. Before the Labour Court, there seems to have been no dispute whatsoever that the dismissal of the respondent workman was on account of misconduct consisting of behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner and having assaulted a tea maker (supervisor). The Labour Court, however, referred to the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Suraj Prakash Kapur, etc. AIR 1963 SC 507, (1962) 2 SCR 711, (1962) 1 SCJ 108 in which the general argument was not accepted that in all cases where services of an employee are terminated for misconduct, gratuity should not be paid to him. However, this Court has had occasion to consider in detail the various circumstances in which gratuity would be liable to forfeiture for misconduct of a particular nature. It was laid down in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, etc. AIR 1970 SC 919, (1969) 2 SCR 307, (1970) 1 SCJ 765 that the object of having a gratuity scheme is to provide a retiring benefit to workmen who have rendered long and unblemished service to the employer and thereby contributed to the prosperity of the employer, and it is, therefore, not correct to say that no misconduct however grave, may not be visited with forfeiture of gratuity. Misconduct could be of three kinds: (1) technical misconduct which leaves no trail of indiscipline, (2) misconduct resulting in damage to the employer's property which might be compensated by forfeiture of gratuity or part thereof, and (3) serious misconduct such as acts of violence against the management or other employees or riotous or disorderly behaviour in or near the place of employment, which, though not directly causing damage, is conducive to grave indiscipline. The first should involve no forfeiture, the second may involve forfeiture of the amount equal to the loss directly suffered by the employer in consequence of the misconduct and the third will entail forfeiture of gratuity due to the workman. In other words, according to this decision, if a workman is guilty of a serious misconduct of the third category, then, his gratuity can be forfeited in its entirety.
4. In yet another case in Ramington Rand of India Ltd. v. Workmen (1969) 3 SCC 913, (1970) 2 SCR 935 one of the questions was whether a provision can be made in a gratuity scheme that if the misconduct is a gross one, involving violence, riotous behaviour, etc., the qualifying period should be limited to fifteen years of continuous service. The earlier decision in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. case was discussed and reference was made to it. The Court expressed agreement with the decision in the earlier case that matters which had impact on the discipline and the working of the concern, require a different treatment in the matter of forfeiture of gratuity. It is significant that in Section 4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, it has been provided as follows:
“The gratuity payable to an employee shall be wholly forfeited: (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part,….” Although the provisions of this statute would not govern the decision of the present case, the importance of the enactment lies in the fact that the principle which was laid down in the Delhi Cloth Mills case with regard to forfeiture of gratuity in the event of commission of gross misconduct of the nature mentioned above, has been incorporated in the statute itself. Even otherwise, such a rule is conducive to industrial harmony and is in consonance with public policy.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show how the rule laid down in the Delhi Cloth Mills case would not be applicable if the concerned workman was guilty of the kind of misconduct mentioned above. His sole contention has been that the Labour Court did not apply its mind to the nature and degree of the misconduct committed, and, therefore, the matter should be remitted to that Court for a decision in accordance with law. In our opinion, it is not necessary to send the matter to the Labour Court, because the facts were not in dispute before it.
6. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed and the award of the Labour Court is set aside. It is hereby declared that the concerned workman will not be entitled to the gratuity earned by him. The respondents will be entitled to costs in view of the order already made by this Court on February 1, 1968.
Alert