IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2307 of 2009()
1. THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.G.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,EX.B.NO.9232,
... Respondent
2. M.V.SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
3. P.M.MANIKANDAN, EX.B.NO.9233,
4. P.SATHYAPRAKASAN, EX.BO.NO.9235,
5. ABI K. ISSAC, EX.BO.NO.9235,
6. UMA, PRASAD CHANDRAN NAIR,
7. K.P.SUNIL KUMAR, EX.BO.NO.9276,
8. JAMES MENACHERY, EX.B.9578,
9. SANTHOSH P.H., EX.B.NO.12194,
10. CLAUDIUS PETER, EX.B.NO.8148,
11. UNION OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
For Respondent :SHRI.RAJEEV KOYIKKAL, CGC
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :08/10/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. No.2307 of 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
Whether the appellant is justified in categorizing the
employees who ‘resigned’ from the service as a separate class, so as
to deny the benefit of gratuity based on the pay revision effected
with effect from 1.1.1997, is the moot point involved.
2. The sequence of events shows that a pay revision
was implemented in the appellant Company as per Ext.P2, pursuant
to Ext.P1 issued by the Department of Public Enterprises, with effect
from 1.1.1997. Arrears of salary were stipulated to be paid only
with effect from a subsequent date, because of the frustrating
pecuniary position of the company. The benefits derived by virtue
of the pay revision were given to the employees in due course.
However, in respect of the persons who were ‘superannuated’
between 1.1.1997 and 30.6.2001, the said benefits were denied;
W.A.No.2307 of 2009
– 2 –
which made them to approach this Court seeking for disbursement
of the due benefits. After hearing both the sides, Ext.P3 judgment
was passed in the writ petition, answering the position in favour of
the petitioners and against the company; which in turn was
subjected to challenge by filing a writ appeal before this Court
culminating in Ext.P4 judgment passed by the Division Bench;
whereby the appeal preferred by the company was dismissed. On
finalizing the proceedings as above, the benefits were extended to
the said persons as well.
3. However, coming to the case of the persons who
‘resigned’ from the service in the aforesaid period, the company
tried to draw a distinction that they stood on a different pedestal
than the employees covered by Exts.P3 and P4 and therefore, the
benefit was denied to them; which made them to approach this
Court by filing the present writ petition. The factual and legal
positions were analyzed by the learned Single Judge who held that
the course pursued by the appellant company was not in conformity
with the law declared by this Court and accordingly, referring to the
W.A.No.2307 of 2009
– 3 –
dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Uco Bank and others v.
Sanwar Mal (2004 (2) LLJ 490), the writ petition was allowed,
holding that the persons concerned were also entitled to have the
benefit of gratuity in terms of the pay revision effected from
1.1.1997 in the same manner as it was ordered to be paid in respect
of the persons covered by Exts.P3 and P4; which in turn is
subjected to challenge in the present writ appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the company
submits that the plight of the company is discernible from the pay
revision proceedings and it was accordingly, that the arrears of
salary were paid only in the year 2001, though the pay revision
was implemented with effect from 1.1.1997. This, however,
cannot be a tool for the company to deny the pensionary benefits
which include the ‘gratuity’, which of course is a statutory right
under Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The
relevant provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act govern the
case of the persons who ‘resigned’ from the service, as well. The
findings and reasonings given by the learned Single Judge for
W.A.No.2307 of 2009
– 4 –
allowing the the writ petition appear to be very much correct and
proper and are not assailable.
No interference is warranted and the writ appeal is
dismissed accordingly.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice
P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge
vns