Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 659 (MAD)

Commissioner v. Joint Commissioner of Labour

2014-03-14

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The third respondent was a substitute worker in the petitioner Municipality from 02.03.1968 to 14.11.1988. Thereafter, she became a permanent worker. She retired from service on 30.06.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. 2. The third respondent was paid DCRG of Rs.38,773/-for the period from 14.11.1988 to 30.06.2004 and the period from 02.03.1968 was not counted for the purpose of payment of gratuity. Hence, she approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (shortly "the Act") and the Controlling Authority allowed her claim. 3. The appeal preferred by the writ petitioner before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act was dismissed. The writ petition is against the aforesaid order of the said authority. 4. Heard the submissions made on either side and the submission made by Ms.Nagasaila, learned Amicus Curiae. 5. As per the notification in S.O.239, dated 08.01.1982, issued by the Central Government, under Section 1(3)(c) of the Act, the Local Bodies are governed by the Act. 6. As rightly contended by the learned Amicus Curiae, Section 2(e) of the Act defines "employee", which is extracted hereunder: "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway, company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity." 7. The aforesaid definition makes it clear that "any person" is defined as employee and the only exemption is the apprentice. Even the apprentice under the Apprentice Act alone are exempted and not other apprentices. 8. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the third respondent workman holds the post under the Central or State Government. Hence, the third respondent workman is entitled to gratuity from 02.03.1968 in view of Section 2 (e) read with Section 2-A of the Act. 9. Further, Section 14 of the Act overrides all other enactments that deal with the provisions of the Act. Hence, the third respondent workman is entitled to gratuity from 02.03.1968 in view of Section 2 (e) read with Section 2-A of the Act. 9. Further, Section 14 of the Act overrides all other enactments that deal with the provisions of the Act. Hence, I am of the view that the third respondent - workman is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, as determined by the Controlling Authority and as confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 10. Further, the following judgments, relied on by the learned Amicus Curiae are directly on the point and in favour of the third respondent workman. (a) Judgment of this Court in THE COIMBATORE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR / THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND OTHERS in W.P.No.21865 of 2000 dated 08.02.2010 (b) Judgment of this Court in K.NATARAJAN VS. THE TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION AND OTHERS in W.P.No.3377 of 2007 dated 25.07.2011. (c) Judgment of this Court in THE COMMISSIONER, TRICHIRAPALLI CORPORATION VS. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND OTHERS in W.P.(MD) No.334 of 2007 dated 04.03.2013 (d) Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Y.K.SINGLA VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS [ 2013 (3) SCC 472 ] 11. In the light of the above, the order of the authorities are liable to be upheld with some modification. Since the authorities failed to take into account the payment made under DCRG, the same has to be adjusted and the balance amount has to be paid by the writ petitioner Municipality with interest, as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, to the third respondent – workman. 12. Accordingly, the Controlling Authority is directed to pay the amount of gratuity, along with interest, as provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, to the third respondent – workman, after adjusting DCRG, since the same could have been deposited at the time of filing of the appeal, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.