IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No. 768 of 2011
Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Limited,
Merin Diesel Engine Plant, Ranchi ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate
For the Union of India : Mr. T.N. Mishra, C.G.C.
02/Dated: 22 nd June, 2011
1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by
Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Chief Labour commissioner (Central), Dhanbad under
the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Gratuity Appeal No. PGA(02)/2009DY. CLC
dated 27.12.2010 (Annexure 4).
2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the respondentworkman
was serving with the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1971 and has been retired on
31.01.2007
and he has already been paid the amount of gratuity for the aforesaid
period and the workman, after receiving the gratuity amount for the aforesaid period,
has preferred application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 for payment of outstanding amount of gratuity for the period
running from 26.09.1969 to 31.12.1979 and for this period the amount of gratuity
was not paid and, therefore, an application was preferred for payment of gratuity
before the Controlling Authority, who has decided the dispute in favour of the
present petitioner and an appeal was preferred by the respondentworkman before
the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the appeal is
allowed and the amount of gratuity is ordered to be paid from the period 26.09.1969
to 31.12.1970 to the tune of Rs. 11,256/. The Controlling Authority is awarded
additional amount of gratuity of Rs. 11,256/ for the aforesaid period and, therefore,
the present petition has been preferred mainly on the ground that the petitioner has
never worked for the aforesaid period and there is no evidence on record and,
therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Authority deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and looking to the evidences on
record, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the reason that the
respondentworkman has clearly established that he was actually worked for the
period from 26.09.1969 to 31.12.1970. Moreover, over and above his deposition,
there are also documentary evidence which are contemporary record, which is
payment of insurance money for employees. No error has been committed by the
Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in analyzing those
evidences on record and rightly, conclusion has been arrived at by the Appellate
Authority that the Management shall pay the gratuity to the workman for the period
from 26.09.1969 onwards. Looking to the reasons given by the Appellate Authority,
there are absolutely just and proper reasons based upon the evidences on record and,
therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate
Authority. The Management has also raised the plea that looking to the nature of
work of the respondentworkman, it could not be said that the workman had worked
regularly for the aforesaid period from 26.09.1969 to 31.12.1970. This argument has
rightly been brushed aside by the Appellate Authority because it makes no difference
under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 whether the workman was employed as a
casual labourer or the regular employee, if the fact is established that the workman
has actually worked. Moreover, the amount of gratuity now is to be paid by the
petitioner only Rs. 11,256/ and with all calculated interest etc., it never exceeding
Rs. 20,000/ as on today.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to
interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority and, hence, this writ
petition is dismissed.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
Manish