http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (BOMBAY) (PVT.) LTD.& ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS (BOMBAY) EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/03/1978

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1978 AIR 1137            1978 SCR  (3) 473  1978 SCC  (3) 188

ACT: Constitution  of  India,  1950,  Art.  136-Interference   by Supreme  Court  on  the  merits  in  an  appeal  against  an industrial award-Construction of the language of a reference Whether the reference in the instant case, included the pro- nouncement   upon  gratuity"  to  non-journalists   by   the Tribunal.

HEADNOTE: The  Central Government made a reference to  the  Industrial Tribunal in the following terms :               "Whether,  the  recommendations  of  the  Wage               Board for non-journalist employees as accepted               by  Government by its Resolution No.  WB-17(7)               67. dated the 18th November, 1967, are  unfair               or unreasonable and if so, what  modifications               are required therein to ensure a fair and just               wage structure for the non-journalists, having               due  regard  to  the paying  capacity  of  the               respective   newspaper   establishment,    the               employer’s  agreement  and the  emoluments  of               employees      engaged      in      comparable               establishments." The  National  Tribunal gave an award covering  many  topics including  gratuity.  All the newspaper establishments,  but one  namely, the appellant, had fallen 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 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 his son ask  bread,  will give him a stone?" The Industrial Tribunal of India in areas unoccupied   by  precise  black  letter  law,  go   by   the Constitutional  mandate of social justice in the  claims  of the ’little people’. [475 D-F-] 2.It  is not as if the Supreme Court of India shall  not  go back  upon what was throughout understood by all before  the Tribunal.  The jurisdictional justification must be found in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

the   Reference  itself,  not  in  the   brooding,   perhaps blundering,  consciousness  of litigants,  liberality,  not, pendantry,  guiding the construction of the language of  the references [476 B-C] . Management  of Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Workers and  Staff [1963] 3 SCR P. 540 @ 555 followed. 3.  This  Court lends no countenance to  submission  on  the merits  in  the absence o flagrant violation  of  principles gross   travesty  of  justice  and  like  extreme   grounds, especially when the appeal is against an Award by an  Indus- trial Tribunal. [481 B-C] 4.  ’Gratuity’  and  its  quantum,  like  other   retirement benefits, hasa  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  they  are   inter- connected.  A heavy wage scale, may have same impact on  the gratuity  rate and a large provision for gratuity  nay  have its  retroactive  effect  upon the wage  structure.   It  is composite  equity writ on the economic life of  the  worker. [477 G-H. 478 A] 474 in the instant case:- 5. (a) It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the parties can  both sides at the level of pleadings, at the  stage  of arguments and in the rival process of contest, desiderated a decision  on a gratuity scheme for non-journalists.  Item  1 of the Schedule of the Reference, the proceedings before the Tribunal and the reasoning in the Award converge to the only conclusion reasonably available that the gratuity scheme for non-journalist workmen was covered by the reference. [478 H, 480 E-F, 481 A] (b)  The  Tribunal  was  well  within  its  jurisdiction  in deciding   on   ’gratuity’.   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 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.  All these lead to  the  only conclusion  that the scheme of gratuity recommended  by  the Wage   Board  was  before  the  Tribunal  for  revision   or modification. [478 B-C-G] (d)  The Tribunal’s duty to decide a ’matte referred to  it, could  not be repelled merely because there was no  separate plea by one of the many workmen’s groups about gratuity; and [478 G] (e) The recommendations made by the Wage Board and  accepted by the Government admittedly include gratuity.  The Tribunal has, ex-necessitate, to decide whether this recommendationon gratuity  is  unjust and 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. [477 C-E]

JUDGMENT: 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 NIT-1 of 1969  published  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Gazette of India Extraordinary dt. the 3-8-70) G. B. Pai, O. C. Mathur & D. N. Mishra For the Appellant M. K. Ramamurthi, J. Ramamurthi & R. Vaigai For Respondent No. 1(a) in both the Appeals. O. P. Rana : For Respondent No. 1, in CA No. 530/71. The Judgment of the Court KRISHNA  IYER,  J.-A  free pass can summon  by  its  flaming vigor only if its journalistic and non-journalistic wings go into full swing with courage and contentment to make 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 is 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 non-legislative measures have taken care of.the  working conditions of the 475 journalists and the non-journalists.  We are concerned  here with non’journalists and that portion of an award which  has conferred standardised gratuity benefit on them. The importance of the enthusiasm, integrity and 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  stomach.    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 to  make  a reference to the Industrial Tribunal of certain questions of economic  justice concerning non-journalist employees.   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 convention. 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  colored  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 his son ask bread, will give him 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  people’. 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  acute dispute  in  this  appeal is the very  jurisdiction  of  the tribunal to pronoun 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

             "Whether  the  recommendation s  of  the  Wage               Board for non-journalist employees as accepted               by  Government  by  its  Resolution  No.   WB-               17(7)/67,  dated the 18th November, 1967,  are               unfair   or  unreasonable  and  if  so,   what               modifications are required therein to ensure a               fair  and  just wage structure  for  the  non-               journalists,  having due regard to the  paying               capacity    of   the   respective    newspaper               establishments,  the employer’s agreement  and               the   emoluments  of  employees   engaged   in               comparable establishments.’’ 476 Mr. G. B. Pai in his very persuasive and pointed submission, rightly  ’stressed  that  the Tribunal had  only  a  limited jurisdiction,  trammeled  by  the  terms  of   reference-not beyond, and in his view the question of gratuity was outside the  reference  altogether.  Were it- so that  part  of  the award  was  an  exercise in gratuitous  futility,  being  an ultra-jurisdictional generosity.  Notwithstanding Sri M.  K. Ramamurthy’s  assertion  that this Court shall not  go  back upon  whit  was  throughout understood  by  all  before  the Tribunal.,  we have to find jurisdictional justification  in the   Reference  itself,  not  in  the   brooding,   perhaps blundering,  consciousness of litigants.  But 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  (1) 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  blinkers and niceties of pleading. Let us therefore face the only issue in the appeal-no, 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 term of reference which, on a closer look, calls  into three parts.  This trichotomy once grasped,  the riddle of the case stands resolved. The  pre-amble to the reference 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               newspapers  establishment  mentioned  in   the               Anexure,  in respect of the implementation  of               the recommendations of the Wage Board 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

Reference.  It is common ground that the recommendations  of the ’wage Board for non-journalist list 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 (1)  [1963] 3 S.C.R. 540  555. 477 anatomy  of item 1 of the Schedule has now to  be  X-rayed-. We  have earlier quoted it, and its triple  components  may now  be  separated.   The first and  the  second  parts  are substantive and read thus : (a)  Whether the recommendations of the Wage Board for  non- journalist  employees  as  accepted  by  Government  by  its 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  has, 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, what the  pur- pose 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 structures 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  in- tended  to  be oriented on a certain wet  ire  ground  norm. What  is that goal, that objective, that perspective ?  This is ’supplied by the last part of reference No. 1. That is to by,  the  Tribunal will adjudicate on the first  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

compartments, 478 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 ’gratuity’,  the  function of the last limb, fair  and  just wage  structure’, being to shape the size, of the  gratuity, not to exclude gratuity  from  adjudication, to  tailor  it, not to throw it out. This  construction receives considerable  confirmation  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 impregnate 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 *on- 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 favored class. 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 pleaded it.  The Triunars  duty to  decide  a matter referred to it could  not  be  repelled merely because here was no separate plea by one of the  many workmen"s groups about gratuity. There  is other telling testimony that all the  parties  had proceeded on the clear footing that gratuity was covered  by the  terms  of  reference.  Shri M. K.  Ramamurthy  took  us meticulously through the 479 bulky   award   which   covered   six   leading    Newspaper establishments   of  India  and  the  workmen  under   them.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

Paragraph  16,  for example, while quoting  the  Wage  Board recommendations,   refers  to  gratuity  to   non-journalist employees.   Similarly we find in paragraph 95, 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 contention 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  Ex- press 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  footing 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  up               for consideration the first item of dispute in               the reference, dated September 17, 1968, which               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  against  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   appeal  regarding  gratuity   scheme               applicable to Working Journalists 480               as  per the       provisions     contained  in               the Working Journalists (Condition of Service)               and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1955, because               in that appeal the present disputants are  not               parties. (Viii)........ (ix).......... 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

gratuity.  Of course, he mentioned the lack 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  non-journalist  workmen.               It  was not to the interest of the  management               to lead evidence because they would like  very               much  to  await  the  final  decision  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 *Ad, 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 contention was included’ in  the terms  of reference (item 1).  The long submissions by  many counsel  on behalf of the employers an(. 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  verdict  s without being sure that all 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. 481 Thus,  our  understanding  of  item   in  the  Schedule   of Reference, ,Our study of the proceedings before the Tribunal and  the  reasoning  in  the  Award  converge  to  the  only conclusion reasonably available that the gratuity 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 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

482