IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2220 of 2007
Ram Chandra Prasad Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd
2. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)
Cum-Controlling Authority under Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972
3. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)
Cum-Appellate Authority under Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate
---
6. 17.08.2009
Heard Shri Kumar Nilesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondent BCCL.
2. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for an order quashing
the judgment / findings contained in the order dated. 4.4.2005, passed by the
Controlling Authority, namely, the respondent no. 2 in P.G. Case No.
36/(47)/2003-E-3 and also for quashing the judgment / findings contained in the
order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority namely, the respondent
no. 3 in P.G. Appeal No. 29 of 2005 and P.G. Appeal No. 21 of 2005.
A further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to
pay the petitioner the amount of gratuity by adding the period of his past service
rendered under the Coal Mines Labour Organisation (C.M.L.W.O), prior to his
joining the services under the respondent BCCL.
3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that he had joined the service of the
respondent BCCL on 1.10.1986. Prior to his joining service under the BCCL, he
was employed under the C.M.L.W.O. from 11.6.1965 till 30.9.1986.
He retired from service under the respondent BCCL on 31st March.2003.
The petitioner had claimed the total amount of gratuity payable to him to the
extent of Rs. 2.20,428.15 paise plus interest thereon, on the ground that the total
length of service which he had rendered under the C.M.L.W.O. should be added
to the service rendered by him under the respondent BCCL.
4. When the demand was not conceded by the respondent BCCL, the
petitioner preferred an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act before the
Controlling Authority.
The respondent BCCL contested the prayer of the petitioner. Upon
evidences being adduced before it, the Competent Authority by its impugned
order (Annexure-1), declared that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity amount of
Rs. 87,396/- only by computing the period of service which he had rendered
under the BCCL. It was observed that on the basis of the petitioner’s own
acknowledgement, for the period he had served under the C.M.L.W.O., the
petitioner had already received the gratuity amount payable to him.
The amount so ordered by the Competent Authority, was payable by the
respondent BCCL together with interest on account of the delayed payment at the
rate of 6% per annum.
The petitioner as also the respondent BCCL, being aggrieved by the
impugned order of the Competent Authority, had preferred separate appeals
before the Appellate Authority.
6. By its impugned order, the Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeals
preferred by the petitioner as also that of the respondent BCCL, upholding the
findings of the Competent Authority.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the case of a
similarly situated another employee namely, S.C. Biswas, it was the same
Competent Authority which had allowed addition of past service rendered by the
employee concerned under the C.M.L.W.O., together with the period of service
rendered under the BCCL. Learned counsel in this context invites attention to the
judgment passed by the Competent Authority in Application No. 36/(16(/97.E.4
(Annexure-3) and submits that the Competent Authority has apparently
discriminated and passed conflicting orders on the same nature of claims
advanced by the concerned employees.
8. Shri Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondent BCCL, would
vehemently deny and dispute the entire claim of the petitioner. While supporting
the findings of the Competent Authority, as also that of the Appellate Authority,
on the issue relating to the petitioner’s demand for addition of his past service
rendered under the C.M.L.W.O., learned counsel submits that the petitioner had
admittedly received the entire amount of gratuity which was payable to him for
his past services under the C.M.L.W.O. Furthermore, at the time of joining the
respondent BCCL, the petitioner had three distinct options. The first option was
that the employee may opt for retaining in Government Service; the second
option was that the employee may opt for absorption in the Company’s pay scales
on the terms and conditions of the B.C.C.L. and third option was that the
employee may opt for absorption in the company with retention of Government
pay scales and service conditions including pensionary benefits. On the
petitioner’s opting for option no. 2, the pay scales and terms and conditions
applicable to the employee serving in company, squarely apply to the petitioner.
One of the terms and conditions applied to the petitioner was that the gratuity will
be paid only for the services rendered by him under the Company and the past
services rendered under the C.M.L.W.O., would not be taken into account for the
purpose of gratuity. Learned counsel argues that under such circumstances, the
petitioner cannot make any further claim of gratuity for the past service rendered
by him under the C.M.L.W.O.
Learned counsel refers in this context to another judgment passed in an
identical case relating to one of the co-employees who had also served under the
C.M.L.W.O., and had demanded addition of his past services rendered under the
C.M.L.W.O. together with the services rendered under the respondent BCCL, but
the prayer was rejected by the same Competent Authority and the same treatment
has been given to the petitioner also in the matter of his claim.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the
entire facts and circumstances, it appears that the petitioner has already received
the amount of gratuity for the period of services rendered by him under the
C.M.L.W.O. Furthermore, admittedly, the petitioner had accepted the second
option under which he had agreed to be guided by the terms and conditions of
services under the BCCL on his absorption under the respondent Company. The
terms and conditions, had categorically declared that for the purpose of
computing the amount of gratuity, the petitioner’s services under the respondent
Company alone, shall be considered and his past services under the C.M.L.W.O.
would not be considered.
10. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot certainly gain any
mileage or advantage on the ground that under identical circumstances, prayer of
a similarly situated co-employee was allowed and his past services rendered
under the C.M.L.W.O. was taken into account with the services rendered under
the respondent BCCL.
The facts of the other case referred to by the petitioner are disputed by the
counsel for the respondent BCCL in this case. Be that as it may, if it is shown that
the findings in a particular case have been recorded erroneously, it can not be
demanded that the error should be allowed to be continued.
12. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any perversity or
impropriety in the findings recorded either in the impugned order of the
Controlling Authority or Appellate Authority. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
Ranjeet/