Petitioner, the Management of Doolahat Tea Estate tiled this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the award dated 12.1.87 passed by the second respondent - the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No.19 of 1984 answering the reference in favour of the first respondent. 2. The petitioner tea estate was originally owned by a company known as Balmer Lawrie and Co. Limited. Thereafter it was taken over by another company known as Kanoi Plantations Pvt. Ltd. The workmen of the tea estate enjoyed a non-contributable pension scheme in addition to the provident fund benefit as per the Pension and Retirement Benefit Scheme for clerical, medical and artisan staff. As per the said scheme an employee who had completed 15 years or more unbroken service in one or more of various participating companies in the status of clerical, medical or artisan staff would be entitled to get the benefit. The grant of pension in addition to provident fund benefit and gratuity replaced the past practice of granting of retirement gratuity and it was specifically mentioned in the said scheme that the retire­ment gratuity would not be given except as provided under the scheme. There was bipartite agreement entered into by and between the management and the staff (clerical, medical and artisan) and this came into effect on and from 7.9.62. On 21.1.76. the Secretary of the garden unit of first respondent wrote a letter expressing their willingness to accept gratuity in lieu of said pension scheme. By a letter dated 5.5.80 the garden unit of the first respondent requested the management to pay pension immediately and expressed their willingness to refund the gratuity already paid in lieu of pension at the rate of 50% from their monthly pension money till full recovery of the total amount. The management, however, refused to accept the remand. On the other hand, the management informed the respondent that the workmen would be entitled to pension only when the gratuity amount received so far would be unfunded to the management. A dispute arose. Conciliation proceeding was started. However, conciliation proceeding ended without any settlement and the failure report was submitted. On the basis of that the Government referred the following two issues to the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh : "1. A dispute arose. Conciliation proceeding was started. However, conciliation proceeding ended without any settlement and the failure report was submitted. On the basis of that the Government referred the following two issues to the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh : "1. Whether the management of Doolahat TE, PO North Lakhimur was justified in refusing to pay pension as per the pension and retire­ment benefit scheme for clerical, medical an artisan staff of the company of 1962 to Sarbashri D. Dutta, PK Das and DN Gogoi ? 2 If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ? " The Tribunal registered the reference as Reference Case No 19 of 1984. Written statements were filed on behalf of both the parties Evidence were adduced and then the Tribunal made an award dated 12.1 87 answer in both the issues in favour of the first respondent holding that the workmen are entitled to pension under the Pension Scheme (M/s Balnner Lawrie's Pension Scheme) in addition to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and that the management of Doolahat Tea Estate was not justified in refusing to pay pension to the workmen under the aforesaid scheme. Hence the present petition by the management. 3 I have heard Mr. SS Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. DP Chaliha, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. AK. Goswami, learned counsel who appears at the request of the Court. 4. The main contention of Mr. Goswami is that the award is not sustain­able in law in view of the fact that, (1) the reference was bad a» there was no demand made by the workmen before the management and therefore, there cannot be an industrial dispute without such demand; (2) the Tribunal made the award by adjudicating certain points which were not referred to it and therefore, the award made was without jurisdiction; and (3) the evidence appearing on record will abundantly show that workmen by offering to return the gratuity amount have already waived their right to get gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Tribunal totally overlooked this aspect of the matter.. 5. Mr. DP Chaliha, learned counsel for the first respondent on the other hand, supports the impugned award. Mr. Chaliha submits that the evidence on record will clearly show that the demands were made. But the demands were not fulfilled by the management. 5. Mr. DP Chaliha, learned counsel for the first respondent on the other hand, supports the impugned award. Mr. Chaliha submits that the evidence on record will clearly show that the demands were made. But the demands were not fulfilled by the management. Conciliation failed and ultimately the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. He further submits that there cannot be any waiver under the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. AK Goswami, learned counsel also very fairly submits that under the scheme of Payment of Gratuity Act, there cannot be any waiver. Besides, any agreement arrived at by and between the management and the workmen cannot affect the statutory obligation of the employer to make payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 6. On the rivel contention of the parties it is to be seen whether the impugned award is sustainable in law. As regards the first submission of Mr. Geswami regarding making of demand, Annexures B, C and D clearly indicate that demands were made. Besides, this point was never urged before the Tribunal. Mr. Goswami is also not in a position to show anything on record to indicate that such point was raised before the Tribunal. This being a question of fact, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot look into the matter. Therefore, the first submission of Mr. Goswami fails. 7. Regarding the iccond submission of Mr. Goswami, the issues referred by the Government to the Tribunal are - whether the management was justified in refusing to pay pension as per the pension and retirement benefit scheme for clerical, medical and artisan staff of the company of 1962 and if not, what relief the workmen are entitled to. The Tribunal discussed the entire facts and after discussion came to the following findings : "In the result, it is found that the workmen are entitled to pension under the Pension Scheme (M/s Balmer Lawrie's Pension Scheme) also in addition to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and that the management of Doolahat TE was not justified in refusing to pay pension to the workmen under the aforesaid Scheme." I find that the Tribunal answered the issue and there is nothing to show that the Tribunal went beyond the reference in making the award. The second contention of Mr. Goswami also fails. 8. The second contention of Mr. Goswami also fails. 8. Regarding waiver, the Pension Scheme (M/s Balmer Lawrie's Pension Scheme) was introduced on the basis of a bipartite agreement entered into by and between the company owning the tea estate and their workmen. As per this agreement payment of pension in lieu of gratuity was one of the conditions of service. Thereafter Payment of Gratuity Act was enacted and it came into force on 16.9.72. As per the said Act it is obligatory on the part of the employer to pay gratuity to the employees. Section 14 of the Act overrides other enactments. It reads thus : "The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding 'anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act." The above provision of this Act has an overriding effect notwithstan­ding anything contained in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. In this connection Mr. AK Goswami has drawn my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in Som Prakash Kekhi vs. Union India & another, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 449 . In this case there was an agreement in the form of a trustee under which pension was payable. After coming into force of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Emplyees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provi­sions Act, the employer made certain deductions from the pension already paid which was challenged by the employee under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court considered the justification of such deduction in the light of the provisions of section 12 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Supreme Court while dealing with this matter observed : "The public policy behind the provisions of section 0, 12 and 14 of the respective statutes is clear. We live in a welfare State, in a socialist republic, under a Constitution with profound concern for the weaker classes including workers (Part IV). Welfare benefits such as pensions, payment of provident fund and gratuity are in fulfilment of the directive principles. The payment of gratuity or provident fund should not occasion any deduction from the pension as a 'set-off'. We live in a welfare State, in a socialist republic, under a Constitution with profound concern for the weaker classes including workers (Part IV). Welfare benefits such as pensions, payment of provident fund and gratuity are in fulfilment of the directive principles. The payment of gratuity or provident fund should not occasion any deduction from the pension as a 'set-off'. Other wise, the solemn statutory provisions ensuring provident fund and gratuity become illusory. Pensions are p aid out of regard for past meritorious services. The root of gratuity and the foundation of provident fund are differ­ent. Each one is a salutary benefaction statutorily guarantee^ indepen­dently of the other. Even assuming that by private treaty pasties had otherwise agree to deductions before the coming into force of these beneficial enactments they cannot now be deprivatory. It is precisely to guard against such mischief that the non obstants and overriding provisions are engrafted on these statutes." The Supreme Court also observed : "...the pension scheme came into existence prior to the two beneficial statutes and Parliament when enacting these legislations must have clearly intended extra benefits being conferred on employees. Such » consequence will follow only if over and above the normal pension, the benefits of provident fund and gratuity are enjoyed. On the other hand, if consequent on the receipt of these benefits there is a proportionate reduction in the pension, there is no real benefit to the employee because the Management takes away by the left hand what it seems to confer by the right, making the right, making the legislation left-handed." Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the deduction made under the Provident Fund Act and Payment of Gratuity Act was not justified. Mr. Goswami also has drawn my attention to another decision of the Supreme Court in Committee for Protection of Rights of ONGC Employees & others TS Oil and Natural Gas Commission, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 472 . In this case the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Som Prakash R<.khi (supra) was distinguished by saying that in Som Prakash Rekhi's case the petitioner was entitled to receive pension under the voluntary retirement scheme at the time when the provisions of the Provident Fund Act became applicable to Burmah Shell and the right to receive pension was part of the terms of employment of the petitioner. But in the case of Committee for Protection of Rights of ONGC Employees (supra), it was not so and, there­fore, the law laid down in Som Prakash (supra) was not am liable The decision of the Supreme Court in Committee for Protection of Rights of ONGC Employees, however, indirectly approved the earlier decision in Som Prakash (supra)' 9. I find that the present case is clearly covered by the decision of the Supreme Court Som Parkash (supra) and I fully agree with Mr. AK. Goswami, learned counsel. Under the facts and circumstances of the case I find no force in the submission of Mr. SS Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find anything to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. However, I make no order as to costs.