Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 136 (ALL)

U. P. State Sugar Corporation v. Sukhveer Singh

2008-01-21

RAJIV SHARMA

body2008
Judgment :- Rajiv Sharma, J. Heard Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Virendra Singh Chandel, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.1. Undisputed facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 1, who worked on the post of Cane Head Clerk on permanent basis, was an employee of Jarwal Road Sugar Factory, which was taken over by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation and as such, he became the employee of Sugar Corporation. The opposite party No. 1 on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service, but he did not vacate the quarter, which was allotted in his favour as per service conditions. A clearance slip as required was submitted in respect of clearance of articles of the stores and advances etc. On February 12, 2001 the Store Keeper made a report that quarter has been vacated and as such, the gratuity was released on June 26, 2001. 2. It is stated by the Counsel for the petitioners that the opposite party No. 1 failed to vacate the quarter on retirement and also did not furnish the `No Dues Certificate, but he moved an application on June 4, 2001 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity), for computation of wages for the period January 15, 2001 to May 31, 2001 in view of the Standing Order L.L.8. Notices were issued, to which written statement was filed by the petitioners specifically stating therein that the opposite party No. 1 has not vacated the quarter and further he has not submitted the `No Objection Certificate with regard to the vacation of quarter and as such, in view of the provisions of Standing Order L.L.8, he is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the application under section 33(c)(2) of the Act. 3. TheLabour Court vide judgment and order dated July 28, 2004 directed the petitioners to compute the wages of opposite party No. 1 as Rs. 22,566.75 for the period January 15, 2001 to May 31, 2001 on the ground that the petitioners have failed to pay the gratuity amount on the date of retirement. 4. 3. TheLabour Court vide judgment and order dated July 28, 2004 directed the petitioners to compute the wages of opposite party No. 1 as Rs. 22,566.75 for the period January 15, 2001 to May 31, 2001 on the ground that the petitioners have failed to pay the gratuity amount on the date of retirement. 4. Theaforesaid order has been challenged in the instant writ petition inter alia on the ground that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act, undisputed computation can be made only on the basis of undisputed existing right of a claimant. Further, he was not entitled for the benefit as provided under Standing Order L.L.8., as the opposite party No. 1 failed to vacate the quarter on the date of retirement. 5. It has further been submitted by Mr. P.K. Sinha that on perusal of the provisions of Standing Order L.L.8., gratuity is only payable after clearance slip is tendered and the workman vacates the quarter and hands over its possession to the Management simultaneously. , On the other hand, Mr. Chandel, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. I submitted that it is the obligation on the part of the petitioners unit to pay the gratuity and it is only thereafter, the quarter is to be vacated and till the date of payment of gratuity, he shall be deemed to be in service and is entitled for full payment of wages and other benefits, while in service. He further submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the , Labour Court. 6. In order to appreciate the rival submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, the provisions of Standing Order L.L.8., are being reproduced as under: "L.L.8: The management shall pay the amount of gratuity to a retiring workman as may be found due to him by the management on receipt of a clearance slip from the, workman in respect of articles of stores, advances etc. `and the workman shall simultaneously vacate his quarter and handover its possession to the management. `and the workman shall simultaneously vacate his quarter and handover its possession to the management. The retiring workman shall be deemed to be in service and shall be entitled to full wages and all fringe benefits as long as the employer does not tender the due amount of gratuity to him, but receipt of payment of gratuity found due to the employer shall not prejudice the right of the workman to raise a dispute about it, if he considers the amount disputable even on vacation of the quarter and exit from the service. If a workman does not vacate his quarter and handover its possession to the management on the date of retirement despite tendering the amount of gratuity, he shall not be deemed in service after the date of retirement." 7. The word `And occurring after clearance slip from the workman in respect of articles of stores, advances etc. has a cumulative sense, requiring the fulfillment of all the conditions, which is mentioned in the aforesaid provisions after the word `And. The word `And should normally be given its ordinary meaning and should be understood in a conjunctive sense. 8. On perusal of the above provisions, it is abundantly clear that the management has to pay the amount of gratuity on furnishing clearance slip by the workman as well as vacation of quarter and delivery of possession and then the workman becomes entitled for payment of gratuity. In other words, the gratuity is payable to a workman when he submits a clearance slip in respect of articles of store and advances and further not only vacates the quarter but also hands over its possession to the management. Thus, the aforesaid provision casts a duty both on the management and the workman. In case, the workman submits clearance slip and vacates the quarter by handing over its possession, but even then gratuity is not paid by the employer/ management, the workman shall be deemed to be in service and will be entitled for all the wages including fringe benefits. 9. Admittedly, in the instant case, no date for vacation of the quarter has been mentioned nor the possession of the quarter has been handed over to the management till date. 9. Admittedly, in the instant case, no date for vacation of the quarter has been mentioned nor the possession of the quarter has been handed over to the management till date. The opposite party No. 1 on attaining the age of superannuation on January 15, 2001 retired from service, but till May 24, 2001, the quarter which was allotted in his favour was not vacated. It is only after filing of an application on June 4, 2001 under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, the quarter was found to be in abandoned position and as such, notice was issued to the opposite party No. 1 requiring him to collect the gratuity which was admittedly collected by him on June 26, 2001. While perusing the aforesaid provisions, it is abundantly clear that there are two conditions to be fulfilled for payment of gratuity. First, the workman has to furnish clearance slip and vacate the quarter and secondly, he has to handover its possession to the management. There was no pleading either before the Labour Court or in this writ petition as to on which date the possession of the quarter has been handed over to the management petitioners. Further, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the opposite party No. 1 is entitled for payment of service benefits from January 15, 2001 to May 31, 2001 which, in my considered opinion, is not in consonance with the provisions of Standing Order L.L.8. From the pleadings, it is abundantly clear that the opposite party No. 1 has not vacated the quarter on the date of retirement and has not intimated the management for taking possession of it. The employer/management was fully justified in not releasing the gratuity because for the aforesaid act of the opposite party No. 1. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated July 28, 2004 passed by the Labour Court is quashed.