Holding

The Court held that the tribunal’s discretion under s.17A(4) to determine retrospectivity is not reviewable absent unreasonable exercise, that dearness allowance should be uniformly linked within the industry and the issue be remanded, and that ‘award’ in s.4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act includes any award, permitting tribunals to grant more favourable gratuity terms.

Summary

The workmen of Metro Theatre Ltd. challenged an Industrial Tribunal award that revised wage scales and dearness allowance effective from 1‑1‑1977, arguing that it should have been retrospective to 1‑1‑1974, that dearness allowance ought to be linked to the cost‑of‑living index, and that the tribunal could grant a more favourable gratuity scheme under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Supreme Court held that under s.17A(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act the tribunal has discretionary power to fix the date of operation of an award and its decision was not unreasonable; that uniformity in dearness‑allowance linkage within the cinema‑exhibiting industry is desirable and the matter must be remanded for fresh consideration; and that the term “award” in s.4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act includes any future award, allowing tribunals to grant better gratuity terms. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part – the gratuity point was upheld, the dearness‑allowance issue was remanded, and the retrospectivity claim was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Industrial Tribunal could grant retrospective effect to its award under s.17A(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Whether dearness allowance should be linked to a rational principle such as the cost‑of‑living index
Interpretation of s.4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – does “award” include future awards

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 17A(4)
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972s. 4(5), s. 5

Subjects

industrial disputeaward retrospectivitydearness allowancecost of living indexgratuityPayment of Gratuity Acttribunal discretionuniformitylabour law

Judgment

164

A WORKMEN OF METRO THEATRE LTD., BOMBAY
v.
METRO THEATRE LTD., BOMBAY

July 31, 1981

B (V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.]

Labour legislation-Retrospeclivity of the award-Discretion to make the
Award with retrospective effect vests with the Tribunal uuder section 17A(4) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Linkage of dearness allowance with some rational

-
principle-Cost of living indeX and consumer price index principle or on the normal
princi'ple of industry-cum-region should be uniform and desirable in one and the
c same industry-Payment of Gratuity Act, section 4(5)-Award includes any Award
that would be made by an adjudicator wherein better terms of gratuity could be
granted to the employees if the facts and circumstances warrant such grant.

The v.·ages and grauity of the workers of Metro Theatre were governed by
an earlier award in Reference No. l of 1968 published in 3-7-1969 which was
effective from 1-1-1967, while dearness allowance was governed by the award in
D Reference No. 440of1970 effective from 1-1-1970. Both these awards \Vere duly
terminated by notice and fresh demands for revision of wage scales, dearness
allowance, etc. effective from 1-1-1974 were submitted by the workers Union to
the Management on 15-4-1974. A reference (IT) No. 248 of 1975 was made on
10-7-1975 to the Industrial Tribunal which by its award dated September 22, 1977
published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on November 3, 1977 granted the
revision in wage scales and dearness allowance with effect from 1-1-1977. While
E granting special leave against the impugned award the Court confined Ethe appeal
to three points, namely : (i) retrospectivity of the award : (ii) linkage of dearness
allowance to some rational principle and (iii) construction of section 4(5) of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 197J.

Allowing the appeal in part on the point of gratuity and remanding to the
Tribunal on the question of linkage of dearness allowance, the Court.
F
HELD: I. Under section 17A(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it is
a matter of discretion for the Tribunal to decide having regard to the circum-
stances of each case from which date its award should come into operation and
no general rule can be laid down as to the date from which the Tribunal should
bring its award into force and the Supreme Court shall not interfere with the
Tribunal's order in that behalf unless substantial ground is made out showing
G unreasonable exercise or its part, In the instant case, in the absence of any
material placed before the Tribunal or even before the Supreme Court by either
party as to whether the profits earned by the Company for the years 1974, 1975
and 1976 had been disbursed or were still available with the Company at the time
of making the award, a factor relevant on the question of granting retrospectivity
and also in view of decreasing trend in the profits made by the Company during
the said three years, according to the Exhibit u~s marked by the appellant Union
H itself, presumably the Tribunal felt that it would be proper to give the revision
in wage scales and dearness allowance only from 1-1-1977 onwards and not to
give any 1etrospective effect. [167 E-H, 168 A-CJ
WORKMEN v. METRO THEATRE 165

Wenger and Co. and others v. Their Workmen, 1963 II L.L.J. 403: Bengal A
Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen and Another, 1969 I
L.L.J. 751 and Hydro (Engineers) (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1969 I L.L.J.
713, followed.

2. On the question of linkage of dearness allowance with some rational
principle, uniformity is highly desirable in one and the san1e industry. The very
same adjudicator, Shri B.B. Tambe, yet in other Reference (VA) No. 1 of 1979 8
dated June 27, 1980 had awarded payment of dearness allowance linked with the
cost living index, while in the instant case, fixed dearness allowance on the normal
principle of industry-cum-region. [168 C, G-H, 169 A]

3:1. On true construi.;tion of section 4(5) of the Paym~nt of Gratuity Act,
the expression "award" occurring in the said provision does not mean and cannot
be confined to "existing award" but includes any award that would be made by c
an adjudicator wherein better terms of gratuity could be granted to the employees
if the facts and circumstances warrent such grant. In the first place, there is
nothing in the provision which Hmits the expression "award". Secondly, it cannot
be and was not that under the above provision a gratuity scheme obtaining under
existing agreement or contract could be improved upon by a fresh agreement or
fresh contract between the employer and the employee and if that be so,
there is no reason why the expression "award" should be construed as referring D
to an existing award and not to include a fresh award that may be made by an
adjudicator or an Industrial Court improving in favour of the employees the
scheme obtained under the Act or the existing award. Thirdly, the very fact that
under the above provision better terms of gratuity could be obtained by an
employee by an agreement or contract with the employer notwithanding the
scheme of gratuity obtaining under the Act clearly suggests that no standardi-
sation of the gratuity scheme contemplated by the Act was intended by the E
Legislature. (171D-H,172 A]

- 3:2. It is true that the Payment of Gratuity Act enacts a complete Code
containing detailed provision covering all essential features of the scheme for
payment. But it is also clear that scheme envisaged by the enactment secures
the minimum for the employees in that behalf and express provisions are found
in the Act under which better tenns of gratuity if already existing are not merely F
preserved but better terms could b: conferred on the employee in fUture.
[172 A-CJ

State of Punjab v. Labour Court Ju/lundur and Ors. [1980] 1 S.C.R. 953,
followed.

Alembic Chemical Works Company Ltd. v. lts Workmen, [1961] l L.L.J. 328, G
explained.

3:3. The phrase "under any award, agreement or contract with employer"
occuring in section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act is intended to cover
future awards agreem~nts or contracts with the employer since existing better H
terms of gratuity are intended to be protected by issuance of a notification under
section 5 of the Act. [173 B-C]
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] 1 S.C.R.

A [To maintain uniformity and to be in conformity with the Award made by
the same adjudicator in Reference (VA) No. 5 of 1970 M/s. A/ankar and 39
others v. The Workmen employed under them, the Court directed that the gratuity
scheme as set out in paragraph 140 of that award be applicable to the workmen
of Metro Cinema with effect from 1-l· 1970.]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1558 (L)
B of 1978.

Appeal by special leave from the Award dated the 4th August,
1977 of the Industrial Tribunal Maharashtra, Bombay in Reference
(IT) No. 248 of 1975 published in M.O.G. Part I (L) dated 3rd
November, 1977. ...
c
C. L. Dudhia, K.L. Hat hi and Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, for the
Appellant.

G.B. Pai, Manik ri. Gagrat, G. Subramaniam, S.S. Shroff, '
i
D.P. Mohanty and T.R. Das, for the Respondents.
D
The Jud gm en t of the Court was delivered by

TuLZAPURKAR. J. This appeal by special leave is directed
against the award of the Industrial Tribunal Maharashtra, Bombay,
dated September 22, 1977, in Reference (I.T.) '.No. 248 of 1975
in the industrial dispute between the respondent and the workmen
E
employed by it [and published in Maharashtra Government
Gazette on November 3, 1977. Though the demands made
by the workers' Union and the adjudication thereon by the
-
Tribunal related to items like wage scale, dearness allowance,
extra show allowance, gratuity, service conditions of non-
permanent staff and retrosrectivity, while granting special leave this
F
Court confined the appeal to three points, namely, (i) retrospectivity
of the award, (ii) linkage of dearness allowance to some rational
principle and (iii) construction of s. 4 (5) of the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972, and leave was expressly refused in regard to the other
grounds mentioned in the special leave petition. We, therefore,
G proceed to deal with the aforesaid three points on which arguments
were advanced before us by counsel on either side.

It may be stated that prior to the impugned award the wages
and gratuity of the workers were governed by the earlier award in
H Reference No. I of 1968 published on 3.7.1969 which was effective
from 1.1.1967 while dearness allowance was governed by the award
in Reference No. 440 of 1970 effective from 1.1.1970 Both these
WORKMEN v. METRO THEATRE (Tulzapurkar, J.) 167

awards were duly terminated by notice and fresh demands for A
revision of wage scales, dearness allowance, etc. effective from
1.1.1974 were submitted by the Union to the Management on
15.4.1974. The Reference to the Tribunal was made on 10.7.1975
and by the impugned award tbe Tribunal granted the revision in
wage scales and dearness allowance with effect from 1.1.1977.
Counsel for the appellant Union contended that the Tribunal erred B
in not granting the revision with effect from 1.1.1974 as demanded
and at any rate the same should have been granted from 10.7.1975
being the date of Reference, especially when the Tribunal found the
financial capacity of the respondent very sound and admittedly there
had been a steep rise in the cost of living index. He pointed out c
- that the Tribunal while refusing to grant retrospective effect had
erroneously observed that there will be "too much financial burden
ou the company" as, according to him, such additional burden could
not have been more than Rs. 1,00,000/- or Rs. 1, 20,000/- a year
during the three years 1974, 1975 and 1976. In support of his
contention connsel referred to three decisions of this Court, namely, D
Wenger and Co. and others v. Their Workmen,(') Bengal Chemical
and Pharmaceutical Works, Ltd. v. !ts , Workmen and another(') and
Hydro (Engineers) (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Their workman.(')

It is difficult to accept tbis contention and interfere with the
discretion exercised by the Tribunal in the matter which can be done
only if it is shown to have been unreasonably exercised. Under E
s. 17A(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it is a matter of discre-

.. tion for the Tribunal to decide having regard to the circumstances
of each ca;e from which date its award should come into op,ration
aud no general rule can be laid down as to the date from which the
Tribunal should bring its award into force and this Court shall not
interfere with the Tribunal's order in that behalf unless substantial F
ground is made out showing unresonable exercise on its part. Even
the three decisions cited by the counsel clearly brings out the afore-
said position in law. The Tribunal was deciding the Reference in
- August 1977 and though the additional burden may not have been
more than Rs. 1,00,000/- or Rs. 1,20,000/- per year for the three
G
years 1974, 1975 and 1976 if retrospective effect was given to the
revision, no material was placed before the Tribunal by either party
as to whether the profits earned by the Company for the said three
years had been disbursed or were still available with the company at

(l) [1963] 11 LLJ 403. H
(2) [1969] I LLJ 751.
(3) [1969] I LLJ 713.
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982) J S.C.R.

A the time of making the award-a factor relevant on the question of
granting retrospectivity. Even before us no light could be thrown
on the point by counsel on either side. Further there was on record
a statement showing the financial position of the company for the
years 1968 to 1975 (year ending being 31st August) produced by the
appellant Union itself at Ex. US which clearly showed that the
B profits of the company before taxation and depreciation had dwind-
led consistently for the years 1973, 74 and 75, such profits for each
of the said three years being Rs. 6,80,912/-, Rs. 6,51,181/- and
Rs. 5,70,884/-. Presumably it was in view of such decreasing trend
ln the profits made by the company during the three years that the

c
Tribunal felt that it would be proper to give the revision in wage
scales and dearness allowance only from 1.1.1977 onwards and not
to give any retrospective effect. It cannot be said that the discretion
-
has been unreasonably exercised by the Tribunal.

Coming to the second point of linkage of dearness allowance
with some rational principle the Union's contention before the
n Tribunal was, and the same contention has been reiterated by the
counsel for the Union in the appeal-that the dearness allowance
should be linked with the cost of living index and Consumers' Price
Index Number. It was pointed out that the Bombay Working Class
Consumers' Price Index was 800 in 1970 (when the earlier award in
E the matter of D.A. was given), that it had gone upto 1372 in 1977
and that, therefore, dearness allowance on Index No. 999-1,000
should be fixed on 4 weekly basis with a variation for every ten
points rise or fall. But the Tribunal negatived the contention and >.
fixed the dearness allowance on the normal principle of industry-
cum-region and only reason for not linking it to the cost of living
F index was that such linkage did not obtain in any concern falling in
the category of Cinema Exhibiting Industry which could not be -
compared with manufacturing industries like textile where such
linkage operated. Counsel for the appellant Union pointed out that
the same adjudicator (Shri B.B. Tambe) as Sole Arbitrator in Refer-
ence (VA) No. I of 1979 in the industrial dispute between Mis
G Alankar Theatre and 38 other theatres of Bombay (cinemas falling
in classes A-I, A, Band C) and the workmen employed under them
had made an award on June 27, 1980 (published in Maharashtra
Government Gazette on October 9, 1980) wherein dearness allowance
has been linked with the rise in the cost of living index and the
H Consumers' Price Index Number. The result has been thac in Cinema
Exhibiting Industry all the other 39 theatres will be paying to their
workers dearness allowance linked with the cost of living index while
WORKMEN v. METRO THEATRE (Tu/zapurkar, J.) 169

in the case of workmen of Metro Theatre these will be no such A
linkage which would be contrary to normal uniformity which is
always desirable in one and the same industry. We find considerable
force in this contention urged by counsel for the appellant Union.

-··
'"' On the other hand, counsel for the Company pointed out that the
aforesaid award of Shri Tambe in Reference(VA)No. 1 of 1979 dated
June 27, 1980 is under challenge before the Bombay High Court in
Writ Petition No. 79 of 1981 at the instance of the management and
B

as such the question whether dearness allawance in the Cinema
•--- Exhibiting Industry should be tinked with the cost of living index
is still pending consideration before the High Court. Moreover, he
urged that there are certain peculiar features of the Cinema Exhibit-
ing Industry by reason of which it would be inappropriate to link the
c
dearness allowance payable to worker in that industry with the cost
of living index. Fo.r instance, he pointed out, that unlike manufac-
turing concerns. there is little scope for enhancing the profits in
Cinema Exhibiting Industry inasmuch as th' principal source of
income being box-office collection the same is connected with and
D
limited by the seating accomodation in any theatre. However,
nothwithstanding this limiting factor the same adjudicator has gran-
ted the linkage in case of 39 cinema houses in BJmbay which shows
that other factors must have weighed with him as outweighing this
limiting factor. We are clearly of the opinion that uniformity on
this aspect is highly desirable in one and the same industry. The
E
• main reason for the refusal to grant such linkage (i.e. linking the
D-A. with the cost of living index) having disappeared the question
will have to be considered afresh. We do not think that adequate
and sufficient material is available on the record of this case before

- us to decide this issue satisfactorily. Further it would not be advis-
able to direct the parties before us to intervene in the matter pending
before the High Court, for, material which may be peculiar to Metro
Cinema may have to be produced and considered before the issue is
F

properly decided. We, therefore, remand this issue back to the
Industrial Tribunal for disposal in accordanc" with law with a
direction that the Tribunal should give opportunity to both the
parties to produce additional material and after hearing them should G
decide the same afresh. It will be open to the management to raise
all contentions including the contention that dearness allowance
should not be linked with cost of living index but should be granted
on normal principle of industry.cum-region formula. We wish to
make it clear that in case the issue is answered by the Tribunal in
H
favour of the company, the appellant Union shall not raise any
contentions on the quantum of dearness allowance that has been
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] 1 S.C.R.

A allowed by the Tribunal in its award on the basis of industry-cum-
region formula, for the quantum aspect of the revision has become
final by reason of the limited leave that was granted by this Court
while admitting the appeal.

B We shall next deal with the last question pertaining to the
construction of s. 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The
question of construction arises this way. It appears that existing
scheme of gratuity in the Metro Theatre Bombay was as per the
.-.
•
award in Reference (IT No. I of 1968 and the same ha.d been modi-
fied by an agreement between the parties in this Court, which, the
c Union contended, had become extremely inadequate and desired to
have a more beneficial scheme in some respect for its workers.
Counsel for the Union urged that it was open to the ·Tribunal to
give more benefits than were available under the scheme contempla·
ted by the Act and in that behalf reliance was placed on s. 4(5) of
the Act. Counsel for the Company contended the expre,ssion 'award'
D in s. 4(5) meant an existing award and as such if under the existing
award better terms were given to the employees these will not be
affected. It was also urged that the Act was exhaustive and was
intended to ensure uniform payment of gratuity to the employees
throughont the country. The Tribunal acccepted the contention of
the Management and held that it could not go byond the scheme
E contemplated by the Act, and, therefore directed that the gratuity
scheme as per the Act shall prevail subject to the modifications
arrived at under the terms of settlement, if any, if they were more
'
beneficial.

F Counsel for the appellant Union urged befor<, us that no
standardisation of any gratutity scheme was contemplated by the
--
Act as was clear from the express provisions contained in s. 4(5) and
s. 5 of the Act and that enactment being a beneficial piece of legis-
lation s. 4(5) should be construed in favour of the employees and
that, therefore, the Tribunal's view that it could not grant anything
G beyond the scheme contemplated by the Act was erroneous. In
support of such construction reliance was placed upon this
Court's decision in Alembic Caemical Works Company Ltd. v. Its
Workmen(') where a similar provision under the Factories Act was
construed as conferring power on the Tribunal to fix the quantum
H

(!) [1961] 1 L.L.J. 328.
WORKMEn v. METRO THEATRE (Tulzapurkar, J.). 171

of leave on a scale more liberal than the one provided by the Act. A
We find considerable force in this submission.

Section 4(1) of the Act provides that the gratuity shall be
payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after
he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years- (a)
on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) B
on his death or disablement due to accident or disease; sub-s. (2)
provides that for every completed year of service or part thereof in
excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee
at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the wages last drawn by

- the employee and sub-s. (3) provides that the amount of gratuity
payable to an employee shall not exceed 20 months' wages. This
is the main scheme of gratuity contemplated by the Act. Then
c
comes sub-s. (5) which runs thus :

" 5. Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an
employee to receive better terms of gratutity under any
award or agreement or contract with the employer." D

The question for consideration is whether expression 'award'
occurring in the above provision means an existing award or would
include any award whatsoever to be made by an adjudicator under
the Industrial Disputes Act. In the first place there is nothing in
the provision which limits the expression 'award'. Secondly, it cannot
E
be and was not that under the above provision a gratuity scheme
obtaining under an existing agreement or contract could be improved
upon by a fresh agreement or fresh contract between the employer
and the employee and if that be so there is no reason why the expres-

- sion 'award' should be construed as referring to an 'existing award'
and not to include a fresh award that may be made by an adjudi-
cator or an Industrial Court improving in favour of the:employees the
F

scheme obtaining under the Act or the existing award. Thirdly, the
very fact that under the above provision better terms of gratuity
could be obtained by employee by an agreement or contract with
the employer notwithstanding the scheme of gratuity obtaining under
G
the Act clearly suggests that no standardisation of the gratuity
scheme contemplated by the Act was intended by the Legislature.
This also becomes amply clear from the provisions of s. 5 which
confer power upon the appropriate Government to exempt establish-

. ment to which the Act applies from operation of the provisions of
the Act if in its opinion the employees in such establishment, are in
receipt of gratuity benefits not less favourable than benefits confer·
H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] I S.C.R.

A red under the Act. Therefore, on true construction we are clearly
of the view that the expression 'award' occurring in the above
provisions does not mean and cannot be confined to 'existing award'
but includes any award that would be made by an adjudicator
wherein better terms of gratuity could be granted to the employees
if the facts and circumstances warrant such grant. It is true, as has
B been observed, by this Court in State of Punj.1b v, Labour Court
Ju//undur and Ors('). that the Act enacts a complete Code contain-
ing detailed provisions covering all essential features of the scheme
for payment of gratutity. But it is also clear that the scheme envisaged
by the enactment secures the minimum for the employees in that
behalf and express provisions are found in the Act under which
c better terms of gratuity if already existing are not merely preserved
but better terms could be conferred on the employee in future. In
other words, the view taken by the Tribunal that it could not go
beyond the scheme of gratuity cuntemplated by the Act is clearly
erroneous.
D
The decision of this Court in Alem?;c Chemical Works Limited
(supra), which was under the Factories Act, also lends support to
such beneficient construction. In that case the Industrial Tribunal
had fixed the quantum of leave, privilege and sick, for the staff of a
manufacturing concern on a scale more liberal than the one in force
.E
for the operatives of the same concern. In also made necessary
direction regarding accumulation of such leave. The quantum of
leave so fixed by the Tribunal was larger than the quantum of leave
prescribed under the provisions of s. 79(1) of the Factories Act. It
,,
was contended that s. 79 of the Act was exhaustive and had self-
contained provisions with regard to the granting of annual leave
F with wages to the employees, that it had the .effect of introducing
standardisation in the matter of leave and that no addition to the
said leave could be made either by a contract or by an award. This
Court negatived the said contention on the language of s. 79(1) itself.
Additionally, provisions of s. 78 were relied upon which recognised
exemptions to the leave prescribed bys. 79(1). Section 78(1) provi-
G
ded that provisions of Chapter VII! including'· 79(1) shall not
operate to the prejudice oi any right to which a worke; may be
entitled "under any other law or under the terms of any ~ward,
agreement or contract of service", and a proviso to this sub-section
laid down that when such award, agreement or contract of service
provided for longer annual leave with wages than provided under the
H
(t) [1980) 1 S.C.R. 953.
WORKMEN v. METRO THEATRE (Tulzapurkar, J.) 173

Chapter, the worker shall be entitled only to such longer annual A
leave. It was contended that the expression "any award" ins. 78(1)
applied only to existing award. The Court negatived this contention
and held that the contention was plainly inconsistent with a fair and
reasonable construction of the said provision and thats. 78(1) pro-
tected not merely awards, agreements or contracts of service then
existing but also those that would come into existence later. In the B
instant case als~ we are clearly of the opinion that the phrase "under
any award, agreement or contract with the employer" occurring in
s. 4(5) is intended to cover future awards, agreements or contracts
with the employer since existing better terms of gratuity are intended
to be protected by issuance of a notification under s. 5 of the Act.
c
We may also state here that in the other adjudication done by
the same adjudicator (Shri B.B. Tambe) as the Sole Arbitrator in
Reference (VA) No. 1 of 1979 (M/s. Alankar Theatre and 38 other
.
!-~~
theatres v. The workmen employed under them) he has come to a
contrary conclusion and has held that under s. 4(5) of the payment
of Gratuity Act an adjudicator can grant better terms of gratuity and D
has actually proceeded to grant better terms of gratuity to the
workmen employed in all the theatres concerned in that Reference.
(Vide para 140 of the Award). Realising this position, counsel for
the company before us fairly conceded that the employees in the
Metro Cinema would also be entitled to better terms of gratuity-the
same as given to employees in other cinema Houses. Counsel for E
the parties, therefore, agreed before us that gratuity scheme as set
out by Shri Tambe in para 140 of his award dt. 27-6-1980 in
Reference (VA) No. l of 1979 should apply to the workmen of
Metro Cinema. We accordingly, direct that the gratuity scheme as
set out in paragraph 140 of the above award would be applicable to
the workmen of Metro Cinema with effect from l.1.1977. F

In the result the appeal is partly allowed on the point of
gratuity as indicated above and on the question of linkage the appeal
is remanded to the Tribunal for disposal according to law as directed
above. The appeal as regards retrospectivity is dismissed.
G
In the circumstances the parties will bear their own costs.

V.DK. Appeal allowed in part.
H