JUDGMENT
G.C. Bharuka, J.
1. The only question of law which was agitated by the appellant employer before the statutory authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short the ‘Act’) as also before the learned single Judge was as to whether the establishment of the appellant was seasonal in nature so as to attract the provisions of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act.
2. For better appreciation, it will be proper to quote the Second Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, which reads thus.-
“4. Payment of gratuity.-
(1)……….
(2)……….
Provided……..
Provided further that in the case of an employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is not so employed throughout the year, the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days’ wages for each season,”
3. The appellant is the owner of Coffee Curing Works in Chickamagalur under the name and style of ‘Chamundi Curing Works’. One Sakamma, being the mother of the private respondents herein, was working as Garbler in the said Curing Works from January 16, 1975. She died on October 14, 1991. After her death, the appellant employer deposited the amounts of gratuity payable to the deceased with the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-the Controlling Authority under the Act, by computing the same at the rate of 7 days’ wages for each season instead of 15 days wages for each completed year of service. They did so by taking the plea that theirs was seasonal establishment and therefore the Second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 4, as extracted above, was attracted. However, the said plea was not accepted by the authorities under the Act as also by the learned single Judge.
4. The authorities under the Act had found that Coffee Curing Work carried on by the appellant was not ‘seasonal establishment’ since it is run almost throughout the year. This finding of fact remains undisturbed or unchallenged. That being the situation going by common parlance meaning of the expression ‘seasonal establishment’ the establishment of the appellant cannot be treated as seasonal in nature. The expression ‘seasonal factory’ as defined in the Employees’ State Insurance Act and explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Reg. Director, ESIC v. High Land Coffee Works of PFX Saldanha and Sons, is of no consequence in this legal and factual settings of the present case. Though for rejecting the plea of the appellant the learned single Judge has also taken it to be a ground that the establishment of the appellant has not been held as a ‘seasonal establishment’ by the State Government under Section 25-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, which in our opinion, is not of much relevance for the present case.
5. In our opinion, the appellant is not entitled to any relief for another reason as well. For attracting the Second Proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act, two conditions set out therein should coexist. These are (i) it should be a seasonal establishment, and, (ii) the employee should not have been employed throughout the year. It had never been the stand of the appellant that Sakamma was not employed by them throughout the year.
6. In the above view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeals are dismissed.