IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 720 of 2007()
1. THE CANNING INDUSTRIES COCHIN LTD.,
... Petitioner
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
Vs
1. M.P.THRESSIAMMA, W/O.LONAPPAN
... Respondent
2. K.L.MARY,
3. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT
4. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER
For Petitioner :SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :12/02/2009
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY, Ag.CJ & P.BHAVADASAN, J.
===========================
W.A.No.720 of 2007
===============================
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Koshy, Ag.CJ.
Writ petitioners are employees in the 3rd respondent’s
company. They retired from service. Contention of the
petitioners is that they were paid only 7 days wages for
every completed year of service under the Payment of
Gratuity Act. Appellants’ contention is that the company
was only a seasonal establishment. The word ‘Seasonal
Establishment’ is not defined under Payment of Gratuity Act.
Section 4 is the charging section of Payment of Gratuity Act.
It provides that for every completed year of service the
employer shall pay gratuity at the rate of 15 days wages
based on the last drawn wages of the employee. Second
proviso says that, for 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
W.A.No.720 of 2007
2
the rate of seven days’ wages for each season. Second
proviso is applicable only for a seasonal establishment.
Once it was found that in a seasonal establishment
employees who are working throughout the year are entitled
to 15 days’ wages and those employees who are working for
a season will get only 7 days’ wages as gratuity. Here, in
the absence of a definition of ‘seasonal establishment’, we
have to take a general meaning. Admittedly, the factory of
the appellants company runs throughout the year. Even the
workers accepting the contention of the appellants, factory
works throughout the year but workers are working in
rotation basis during the off season period. Since the
factory is working throughout the year and employees are
working in the factory throughout the year though on
rotation basis during non-season, it cannot be stated that it
is a seasonal establishment for the purpose of payment of
gratuity. We are of the view that gratuity being a welfare
W.A.No.720 of 2007
3
activity for the workers, a liberal beneficial interpretation
has to be adopted in favour of the persons in whose favour
Act is enacted. Apart from the above, the employees are
fighting for about a decade and the financial liability as far
as these two writ petitioners are concerned are only very
limited. In the above circumstances, we dismiss the appeal.
J.B.KOSHY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
bkn/-