Gratuity and provident fund scheme principles upheld where misconduct, service basis, and financial capacity objections failed.
A gratuity scheme may be framed on an industry-cum-region basis, but that is not the only permissible basis, and eligibility after ten years' service was not invalid merely because gratuity is linked to long and meritorious service. The forfeiture clause was also upheld because gratuity does not cease to be payable solely due to later dismissal for misconduct, and the employee may first be required to make good financial loss caused by misconduct before claiming the balance. The provident fund direction was sustained because the Tribunal had considered the employer's financial capacity, and that factual finding was not reopened on appeal where the employer had withheld the relevant financial material at trial. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Issues: (i) Whether the gratuity scheme framed by the Industrial Tribunal was liable to be struck down on the ground that gratuity had to be considered only on an industry-cum-region basis and that the eligibility provisions and forfeiture clause were unreasonable. (ii) Whether the direction requiring the employer to frame a provident fund scheme on the lines of the model scheme was invalid for want of proper assessment of the employer's financial capacity.
Issue (i): Whether the gratuity scheme framed by the Industrial Tribunal was liable to be struck down on the ground that gratuity had to be considered only on an industry-cum-region basis and that the eligibility provisions and forfeiture clause were unreasonable.
Analysis: A gratuity scheme may properly be framed on an industry-cum-region basis, but that is not the only permissible basis. The provision allowing gratuity after ten years' service could not be condemned merely because an observation in another case referred to fifteen years' service in a different statutory context. Gratuity is earned for long and meritorious service and does not cease to be payable merely because the employee was later dismissed for misconduct. The clause requiring compensation for financial loss caused by misconduct was also consistent with the principle that the employee should first make good the loss before claiming the balance of gratuity. The reference to service in the scheme was treated as continuous service.
Conclusion: The gratuity scheme was upheld and the challenge to it failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the direction requiring the employer to frame a provident fund scheme on the lines of the model scheme was invalid for want of proper assessment of the employer's financial capacity.
Analysis: The Tribunal had considered the employer's financial position and concluded that the relevant requirements were satisfied. Since the employer had claimed privilege over the financial documents at the trial, it could not later insist on a remand to have those figures reconsidered. The objection was essentially factual and did not disclose any error warranting interference in appeal.
Conclusion: The direction regarding the provident fund scheme was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the Tribunal's gratuity scheme and provident fund direction were left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Gratuity may be validly structured on a unit basis, is not barred merely because service ends in misconduct, and a factual finding on an employer's capacity to bear a provident fund obligation will not be reopened on appeal where the employer withheld the relevant financial material at trial.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
