Straw Board Mfg. Co Ltd. Vs. The
Workmen  INSC 70 (1 March 1977)
CITATION: 1977 AIR 941 1977 SCR (3) 91 1977
SCC (2) 329
Gratuity--Qualifying period of service and
calculation of amounts--Tests for determination.
In an industrial dispute between the
appellant mill and its workmen relating to the payment of gratuity, the Industrial
Tribunal framed a gratuity scheme and gave the necessary guidelines for its
implementation. Special leave was granted to the appellant by this Court on the
limited question whether the correct principles on which gratuity should be
payable had been followed in this case or not. Since the making of the award,
the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was passed, which, by s. 4(5) gave an option
to the workers to choose between the gratuity scheme under the award and the
one under the statute. The workers, however, did not put in their appearance in
It was contended on behalf of the appellant
that the qualifying period of service for earning gratuity was ten years and
for calculating the amount of gratuity basic wages without adding dearness
allowance should be the basis as laid down by some decisions of this Court and
the tribunal was wrong in holding 5 years as the qualifying service and basic
wages and dearness allowance as the basis for calculating the amount of
HELD: There is nothing fundamentally flaw some
in the 5year period being fixed as the qualifying service. The Tribunal was
realistic in fixing the period of eligible qualifying service as continuous
service counted with reference to the completed years as defined in s. 2(c) of
the Act. [100 C&F] (1) In some cases, this Court highlighted the view that
the determination of gratuity is not based on any definite rules and each case
must depend upon the prosperity of the concern, the needs of the workmen and
the prevailing economic conditions examined in the light of the auxiliary benefits
which the workmen may get on determination of employment. It was also held that
stability of the concern, profits made 'in the past, the future prospects and
capacity should be the relevant circumstances which the Tribunal should take
into account in giving its award. Awards are' given on circumstances peculiar
to each dispute and the Tribunals are, to a large extent, free from the
restrictions of technical considerations imposed on courts. In short, the
approach of the Tribunal should be what may be described as its legal hunch or
horse-sense. Cases like Gaziabad Engineering Co. accept the position that.
while gratuity is usually related to the basic wage, a departure may be made by
relating it to the consolidated wage if there be some strong evidence or
exceptional circumstances justifying that course. The real reason why some
cases like British Paints required a qualifying period of 10 years was that a
longer minimum period for earning gratuity in the case of voluntary retirement
or resignation would ensure that workmen did not leave one concern for another
after putting in the short minimum service qualifying for gratuity. But current
conditions must control the Tribunal's conscience in finalizing the terms of
the gratuity scheme. Colossal unemployment at all levels of workers in the
country today means that a worker will not leave his employment merely because
he has qualified himself for gratuity In an economic situation where there is a
glut of labour in the market and unemployment stares the working class in the
face it is theoretical to contend that employees will hop from industry to
industry unless the qualifying period for earning gratuity is raised to 10
years. [98 H;
99D; lOO A, D, E, F.] (2) Wages will mean and
include basic wages and dearness allowance and nothing else. This corresponds
to s. 2(s) of the Act. Some of the decisions refer to basic wages and others to
consolidated wages as the foundation for 92 computation of gratuity. These are
matters of discretion and the "feel" of the circumstances prevalent
in the industry by the Tribunal and, unless it has gone wrong in the exercise
of its discretion the award should stand. In the Payment of Gratuity Act also
it is not basic wages but gross wages inclusive of dearness allowance which had
been taken as the basis. [101 B; 100 G-H] Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co.
v. Workmen & Ors.  2 SCR 307, British Paints  2 SCR 523, Hydro-Engineers
 1 SCR 1.56, Hindustan Antibiotics,  1 SCR 672, Bengal Chemical
& Pharamaceutical Works Ltd.,  Suppl. 2 SCR 136, Gaziabad Engineering
Co.,  2 SCR 622 and Calcutta Insurance Co. Ltd.  2 SCR 596 referred
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1539 of 1970.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Award dated
1/31-10-69 of the Industrial Tribunal Allahabad in Ref. No. 20/58 'published in
the U.P. Gazette dated the 10th Jan. 1970).
I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
P.H. Parekh, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
KRISHNA IYER, J.--A dispute between the
appellant mill (the Strawboard Manufacturing Company Ltd) and its workmen,
regarding a scheme of gratuity, was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, way
back in February 1958, and, long 19 years later, this Court is pronouncing on
the validity of the award made by the Tribunal in favour of the workmen:
Small wonder the respondent workmen, after
this tiring and traumatic tantalization, have not turned up to argue their
cause, although Shri Parekh, as amicus curiae, has filled the gap. Such an
unhappy and not infrequent phenomenon as considerable delay in adjudication and
implementation is destructive of industrial peace and productive of disenchantment
with labour jurisprudence. Naturally, even constitutional provisions and
governmental decisions about labour and concern for its welfare cease to
achieve the desired goals when the legal process limps and lingers and rights
turn illusory' when remedies prove elusive. The life of rights is remedies and
a jurisprudence of ready reliefs alone can inhibit the weaker numbers of our
land asking the disturbing question: 'Is Law Dead ?'. Dicey wrote long ago:
"The saw ubi jus ibi remedium, becomes
from this point of view something much more important than a mere tautological
proposition. In its bearing upon constitutional law, it means that the
Englishmen whose labors gradually formed the complicated set of laws and
institutions which we call the Constitution, fixed their minds far more
intently on providing remedies for the enforcement of particular rights or for
averting definite wrongs, than upon any declarations of the Rights of Man or
Englishmen." (Jurisprudence of Remedies: University of Pennsylvania Law
Review, Vol. 117, Nov. 1968. p.l, 16).
It is more than rhetoric to say that courts
belong to the people.
93 'Judges occupy the public's bench of
justice. They implement the public's sense of justice'. If the Courts are the
fulcrum of the justice-system, there is a strong case for the reform of Court
methodology and bestowal of attention on efficient management of judicial
Otherwise, the courts may be so overloaded or
so mismanaged that they grind to a halt and citizens' exercise of their rights
discouraged or frustrated. The vital aspects of the jurisprudence of remedies
include speeding the pace o[ litigation 'from the cradle to the grave'. We are
reluctant to make these self-critical observation's about putting our house in
order, but when the consumers of justice like workmen lose interest in the
judicial process and are absent, legislative unawareness of research and
development as to the needs of courts and simplification and acceleration of
the judicative apparatus become matters of national concern. Law's delays are
in some measure, caused by legislative inaction in ,making competent, radical
change in the procedural laws and sufficient financing and modernising of the
justice system as a high priority programme.
The chequered career of this lis and its
zigzag climb up the precipice of justice contextually deserves brief narration.
The order of reference was made early in 1958, the usual processual exercise
before the Tribunal resulted in an award on May 1, 1958 where the tribunal
refused the relief bearing on gratuity. The disappointed workers challenged the
award before the High Court which set it aside in November 1963--too long a
hibernation in the High Court for a labour dispute where prompt adjudication is
the essence of industrial peace. Anyway, when the case came back to the
tribunal, its decision took another six inscrutable years and, on October 31,
1969 a fresh award was made where under the tribunal framed a gratuity scheme
and gave the guidelines thereof. This time the appellant mill straight came to
the Supreme Court with the present appeal for which special leave was granted
in a limited way, in the sense that it was confined to the question 'whether
the correct principles on which' gratuity should be payable have been followed
in this case or not. It is a fact, though unfortunate, that this labour
litigation arrived in this Court in 1970 but its final chapter is being written
by this judgment only in 1977. And it is noteworthy that the facts are brief,
the legal issues small, the arguments brief and this judgment, but for general
observations and traditional reference to rulings cited at the bar, could have
been judiciously abbreviated.
The main battle at the bar has been over the correct
principles in a scheme of gratuity for factory workers and further whether
those principles have been departed from under the award assailed by the
appellant. We may mention.
at this stage, that the Parliament has
enacted the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which has come into force with
effect from September 16, 1972. Section 4(5) of -the said Act gives an option
to the workers to choose between the gratuity scheme under the award and the
one under the statute.
Had the workers been represented before this
Court it might have been possible for us finally to close this controversy or
even produce a reasonable solution by discussion and negotiation and persuade
them to opt for 94 one or the other scheme. Early finality, credible certainty
and mutually assented solutions, are the finer processes of
conflict-resolution-a pursuit which baffles us here because of labour's
absence. All that we can do, therefore, is to adjudicate upon the correctness
or otherwise of the principles which have gone into the gratuity scheme
prepared by the tribunal in the light of the rulings of this Court and the
canons of industrial law.
We now proceed to itemise the grounds of
attack levelled by Shri I.N. Shroff for the appellant .and assay their worth in
the light of the submissions in defence of the award made by Shri P.H. Parekh
appearing as amicus curiae. Even here we may place on record our appreciation
of Shri Parekh's services to the Court and the fairness of Shri Shroff in
making his points on behalf of the appelant.
The only dispute, which has ramified into a
few issues, relates to the gratuity scheme the tribunal has framed.
Shri Parekh is right in drawing our attention
in limine to the financial. insignificance, for the appellant, of the subject
matter of this lis and the consequential disinclination we must display to
disturb the award. He has urged that the total annual impact on the industry by
the implementation of the award is of ,the order of Rs. 3,000/to a substantial
part of which the management has no objection.
What is more, the appellant is prosperous
enough to distribute dividends around 20% over the years. Further, since 1972
an obligatory statutory gratuity scheme has come into force with the result
that the economic consequences of this litigation, even if the appellant loses
are marginal or nil. This makes us ponder whether, in matters of less than grave
moment, this court should, as part of high judicial policy to arrest the tidal
flow of unsubstantial litigation, turn away at the portals those who invoke our
jurisdiction to examine every case where some legal principle has been wrongly
decided, regardless of a sense of 'summit court' perspective and the rare use
of its reserve power so as to preempt a docket explosion and the injustice of
delayed justice and invest the High Courts and high tribunals with final legal
wisdom. The amplitude of Art. 136 is ,meant more for exceptional situations
than to serve as hospitable basket to receive all challenges to seemingly
erroneous judgments in the country.
As stated earlier, we are confronted by an
industrial dispute and are called upon .to apply the principles of industrial
jurisprudence with its primary concern for peace among the parties, contentment
of the worker's, the end product being increased production informed by
distributive justice. Law, especially Labour Law, is the art of economic order
sustained by social justice. It aims at pragmatic success, but is guided by
value-realities. It believes in relativity and rejects absolutes. The recent
constitutional amendment (Art. 43A) which emphasizes the workers' role in
production as partners in the process, read in the light of the earlier accent
on workers' rights and social justice, gives a new status and sensitivity to
industrial jurisprudence in our 'socialist republic'. This social philosophy
must inform interpretation and adjudication, a caveat needed because precedents
become time-barred when societal ethos progresses. We 95 are not called upon to
interpret an Act since, in this area of law, the Payment of Gratuity Act came
in on a later date.
Judge-made law rules the roost. Even so, are
we fattered by inflexible norms halLowed by dated decisions ? Not in this
jurisdiction. 'The golden rule' in a rapidly changing system, 'is that there
are no golden rules'. We should be guided by realistic judicial responses to
societal problems, against the back drop of the new, radical values implied in
'social justice' to labour, the production backbone of the nation, adjusted to
the environs of the particular industry and its economics and kindered
circumstances. The dynamics of labour law, rather than the bonded of old-time
case-law answers questions of current justice. Cardozo had cautioned in his
'The Nature of the Judicial Process':
"That court best serves the law which
recognizes that the rules of law which grew up on a remote generation may, in
the fullness of experience, by found to serve another generation badly, and
which discards the old rule when it finds that another rule of law represents
what should be according to the established and settled judgment of society,
and no considerable property rights have become vested in reliance upon the old
rule. It is thus great writers upon the common law have discovered the source
and method of its growth, and in its growth found its health and life. It is
not and i, should not be stationary. Change of this character should not be
left to the legislature. If judges have woefully misinterpreted the mores of
their day, or if the mores of their day are no longer those of ours, they ought
not to tie, in helpless submission, the hands of their successors."
(Cardozo: The Nature of the Judicial Process: Yale University Press pp.
Indeed, we are stating no new proposition
since the profusion of decisions assiduously presented before us states, in
sum, that each case has to be decided; on the updated justice of the
fact-situations therein and the only law that we can reasonably discern from
the rUlings we have read is that there is no law but only justice, dependent on
a variety of socio-economic variables, that the tribunal's award, if his
performance is not perverse in the process or the end product. must be left
well alone by this Court even. if some juristic failing or factual peccadillo
can be discovered. A quest for error and an inclination for correction,
frequently exercised by higher Courts will do double injury. It will take away
the necessary initiative of the tribunal to produce satisfactory results. It
will delay the finality of industrial adjudication and thereby defeat the
paramount purpose of early re-adjustment. Judicial decentralization claims its
price and it must be paid by ignoring errors less than grave. Once this
perspective is clear, our non-interference with this award is just. Moreover,
an industrial tribunal must act on a legal horse sense, rather than on juristic
abstractions, on rugged fairness rather than on refined legalisms. It is
shop-floor justice. not five-star loveliness. The weaker qualify for protective
order, in the over-all view of the matter.
96 Gratuity for workers is no longer a gift
but a right.
It is a vague, humanitarian expression of
distributive justice to partners in production for long, meritorious service.
We have, therefore, adopt a broad and generous approach to the problems posed before
us by Shri Shroff without being mechanistically precedent-bound or finically
looked into evidence.
Speaking generally, Shri Shroff focussed his
fire-power firstly-on the qualifying period of five years for earning gratuity
as against ten years sanctified in some earlier rulings and, secondly, on the
basic wage, as contrasted with the 'consolidated' wage being treated as the
base for the computation of gratuity. He did cite half-a-dozen of more cases of
this court in support which, on closer scrutiny and studied in the light of
other citations Shri Parekh emphasized, stand neutralized.
The Tribunal has itself referred to many
rulings of this Court, noted the features of the industry in question, the high
dividends and 'the low wages and reached a via media which we may regard as a
prudent judicial resolution of the simple conflict. The flavour of the social
milleu, the raw realities of industrial conditions and the locale and lifestyle
out there, are sensed by the tribunal better than a distant court of last
resort primarily specialising in declaration of law. So we are loathe to upset
the scheme unless the tribunal is grievously or egregiously in error.
Shri Shroff staked his case on case-law alone
and culled passages which upheld basic wages as basic and ten-year service for
eligibility. Even here, we must mention that the basic wage at the relevant
time (revised subsequently) was in the miserable range of Rs. 20/per mensem and
to calculate gratuity on this pitiful rate, when after 'long. and meritorious
service' the worker bids farewell to his labour life in the industry, is to be
callous to basic justice.
The Human Today cannot be held captive by the
less-than-human yesterday in a crucial area of social justice. So viewed, we
are constrained to negative the two preliminary contentions urged by Shri
Shroff while agreeing with him on the smaller points of clarification sought.
We reproduce, at this stage, the decretal
part of the award:
"The award, therefore, is that the
employers should be required to frame a scheme of gratuity for their workmen.
The details of the gratuity scheme are as under:
(a)On death of a workman while 15 days wages
for each in continous service or on attcompleted year of service ainment of the
age of super and subject to a maximum of uation or on retirement or 15 months.
resignation due to continued ill health or on
being incapicitated, 97 (b) On voluntary abandoment 15 days wages for each os
service by a workman completaed year of contin case not falling under inious
service subject (a) or termination of to the condition that no service by
employers gratuity will be payable on a total service of less than 5 years ,but
this condition will not apply in case of resignation or discharge on the
grounds of physical disablement or incapacity (i) For the purposes of gratuity
of a period of six months or over shall be reckoned as 'one year' while a
period less than 6 months will be ignored.
(ii) Gratuity shall be payable to the nominee
of the workman in case of his death or to his legal heirs, if no one has been
nominated by the workman in this behalf.
(iii) 'Wages' shall mean and include basic
wages and dear food allowance but shall not include bonus.
(iv) Gratuity will not be. allowed to a workman
in case of a serious misconduct committed by him such as insubordination, acts
involving moral turpitude, etc. In case of damage to the property of employers
or financial loss, the a,mount to the extent of loss shall be liable to be
deducted from the amount of the gratuity.
(v) The basis of payment of gratuity shall be
average earnings of a workman during the last three years." One of the
leading cases both sides referred to is the Delhi Cloth & General Mills
Co., v. Workmen & Ors.(1) In this decision the court did make the point:
"That gratuity is not in its present day
concept merely a gift made by the employer in his own discretion. The workmen
have in course of time acquired a right to gratuity on determination of
employment provided the employer can afford, having regard to his financial
conditions to pay it." Shah, J. speaking for the Court, also emphasized
what we have already adverted to:
"We consider it right to observe that in
adjudication of industrial disputes settled legal principles have little play;
the awards made by industrial tribunals are often the result of ad hoc
determination of dispnted questions, and each determination for. as a precedent
for determination of other dispute. An attempt to search for principle from the
law built up on those precedents is a futile exercise. To the (1)  2
98 Courts accustomed to apply settled
principles to facts determined by the application of the judicial process, an
essay into the unsurveyed expenses of the law of industrial relations with
neither a compass.nor a guide, but only the pillars of precedents is a disheartening
experience. The Constitution has however invested this Court with the power to
sit in appeal over the awards of Industrial Tribunals which are, it is said,
rounded on the somewhat hazy background of maintenance of industrial peace,
which secures the prosperity of the industry and the improvement of the
conditions of workmen employed in the industry, and in the absence of
principles, precedents may have to be adopted as guides--somewhat reluctantly
to. secure some reasonable degree of uniformity of harmony in the process."
Several decisions which were referred to at the bar have been touched upon in
the above case. At the end of the consideration of these cases, the Court made
two pregnant observations which we extract:
"We may repeat that in .matters relating
to the grant of gratuity and even generally in the settlement of disputes
arising out of industrial relations, there are no fixed principles, on the application
of which the problems arising before the Tribunal or the Courts may be
determined and often precedents of cases determined ad hoc are utilised to
build up claims or to resist them. It would in the circumstances be futile to
attempt to reduce the grounds of the decisions given by the Industrial
Tribunals, the Labour Appellate Tribunals and the High Courts to the dimensions
of any recognised principle." x x x x x "It is not easy to extract
any principle from these cases; as precedents they are conflicting." These
cautionary signals guide us too in the instant case.
It is true that on account of the peculiar
circumstances affecting the textile industry in the whole country the Court
felt that the Tribunal was in error in relating gratuity to the consolidated
wage in. stead of the basic wage.
The emphasis in the ruling is on the facts
and circumstances affecting the particular industry and the promotion of
industrial peace in that field. Rightly, if we may say so with respect, did the
Court high-light the view that determination of gratuity is hot based on any
definite rules and each case must depend upon the prosperity of the concern,
needs of the work, men and the prevailing economic conditions, examined in the
light of the auxiliary benefits which the workmen may get on determination of
In short, the core of the matter is the
totally of the circumstances and the stage of evolution of industrial relations
at a given time What held good a decade ago may be given the go by years later.
99 Another leading case on the question of
gratuity is the British Paints(1) where, after referring to the special
features of the particular industry. and the other benefit schemes enjoyed by
the employees, the Court referred to May & Baker where basic wages were
treated as the basis and British India Corporation where 'gross salary i.e.,
basic wages plus dearness allowance' was held to be the basis. It may be noted
that in this case the minimum qualifying service for gratuity was held to be 5
years except in cases where termination resulted from resignation by the
In Hydro-Engineers(2) this Court apparently
upheld the contentions now urged before us by Shri Shroff but stressed that no
hard and fast rule could be laid down and each case must be decided on its own
In Hindustan Antibiotics(3), again, this
Court highlighted the relevant circumstances upon which the discretion of the
Tribunal could play, viz., the stability of the concern, the profits made in
the past, the future prospects and capacity etc. This Court declined to disturb
the gratuity scheme in that case even though the wages which formed the basis
of the gratuity included dearness allowance.
In Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd., Calcutta(4) a Bench of this Court entered the caveat which we have
underscored in the earlier part of this judgment that:
"a free and liberal exercise of the
power under Art. 136 may materially affect the fundamental basis of such
decisions, namely, quick solution to such disputes to achieve industrial peace.
Though Art. 136 is couched in widest terms, it is necessary for this Court to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction only in cases where awards are made in
violation of the principles of natural justice, causing substantial and grave
injustice to parties or raises an important principle of industrial law
requiring elucidation and final decision by this Court and discloses such other
exceptional or special circumstances which merit the consideration of this Court."
It was also mentioned, what is not oft remembered when interfering with awards,
that the Industrial Disputes Act is "intended to be a self-contained one
and it seeks to achieve social justice on the basis of collective bargaining,
conciliation and arbitration. Awards are given on circumstances peculiar to
each dispute and the tribunals are, to a large extent, free from the
restrictions of technical considerations imposed on courts." (1)  2
(2)  1 S.C.R. 156.
(3)  1 S.C.R. 672.
(4)  Suppl. 2. S.C.R. 136.
100 This approach is what we earlier
described as the Tribunal's legal hunch or horse sense. Even Gqziabad Engineering
Co.,(1) on which Shri Shroff heavily relied, accepts the position that while
gratuity is usually related to the basic wage, a departure by relating it to
the consolidated wage may be made if there be some strong evidence or exceptional
circumstance justifying that course.
Calcutta Insurance Co. Ltd. (2) also placed
accent on the practical approach in industrial adjudication and did not
interfere with the qualifying service of 5 years except in the case of
resignation by the employee where the qualifying period was raised to 10 years.
This survey of the cosmos of case-law can
expand, but no service will be rendered by that exercise. All that we need say
is that there is nothing fundamentally flawsome in the 5-year period being
fixed as qualifying service. The real reason why some cases like British Paints
required a qualifying period of 10 years was that a longer minimum period for
earning gratuity in the case of voluntary retirement or resignation would
ensure that workmen do not leave one concern for another after putting in the
short minimum service qualifying for gratuity.
We think that current conditions must control
the tribunal's conscience in finalizing the terms of the gratuity scheme.
Taking things as they are, in our country presently there is unemployment at
the level of workers--that being the category we are concerned with. Colossal
unemployment means that the worker will not leave his employment merely because
he has qualified himself for gratuity. In an econo, mic situation where there
is a glut of labour in the market and unemployment stares the working class in
the face it is theoretical to contend that employees will hop from industry to
industry unless the qualifying period for earning gratuity is raised to 10
years. The tribunal was realistic in fixing 5 years as the period of
Our industrial realities do not provide for
easy mobility of labour. What is more, the sense of national consciousness in
this field is reflected in the Payment of Gratuity Act which fixes a period of
5 years as the qualifying period for earning gratuity.
Decisions have been brought to our notice
some of which refer to basic wages and others to consolidated wages as the
foundation for computation of gratuity. These are matters of discretion and the
"feel" of the circumstances prevalent in the industry by the Tribunal
and, unless it has gone haywire in the exercise of its discretion the award
should stand. We see that in the Payment of Gratuity Act also, not basic wages
but 'gross wages inclusive of dearness allowance, have been taken as the basis.
This, incidentally, reflects the industrial sense in the country which has been
crystallised into legislation.
(1)  1 S.C.R. 622.
(2) 2 S.C.R. 596.
101 All things considered, we are disinclined
to alter the award on the two critical issues on which it was challenged.
However, there are certain minor
clarifications which will eliminate ambiguity and, on that both sides are
We clarify that wages will mean and include
basic wages and dearness allowance and nothing else. This corresponds to Sec.
2(s) of the Act. Likewise, we declare that qualifying service is continuous
service (counted with reference to completed years) as defined in Sec. 2(c). We
hold that the award will operate as directed therein i.e. from the date of
reference of the dispute. Both sides agree, in their statement of the case,
that in clause (a) of the award the expression due to continued ill-health or
on being incapacitated' governs only resignation although we feel on compassionate
grounds it should govern both situations. The ambiguity must be resolved in
favour of the workers. In regard to the other conflicts of construction
possible, as set out in grounds 7 and 8 of the appellant's statement of case,
we resolve them in favour Of the workmen, abandonment of service being too
recondite and the amount involved too trivial for variation by this Court.
Shri I.N. Shroff fairly stated that the Court
may make an order regarding costs. We direct that the appellant do pay the
respondents costs which we quantify at Rs. 2000/-.
Out of this sum. Rs. 1000/will be paid direct
to Shri Parekh who has assisted the Court on behalf of the workers and the
balance of Rs. 1000/shall be drawn by the present President of the Respondent
Union. Our parting thought is that negotiating settlements should be vigorously
and systematically pursued even by tribunals since litigation, escalating. from
deck to deck upto this Court, defeats both, whoever wins or loses. This must be
a sobering influence on Labour and Management and agencies of conflictre solutions.
That is a legal beacon that can brighten the
dark tunnel of industrial conflict and promote national production cheered by