Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 947 (HP)

Managing Director v. Ram Krishan

2014-07-22

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 20th May, 2013, passed by the Writ Court in CWP No. 4350 of 2012, titled as Sh. Ram Krishan and another versus Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation Ltd. and others, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition came to be allowed and the appellants-writ respondents were directed to release gratuity with interest under the Service Bye-laws and also statutory bonus alongwith statutory interest, within a period of six weeks from the date of the judgment, for short “the impugned judgment”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants-writ respondents argued that the impugned judgment is not in accordance with the provisions of law and is bereft of any reason. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners argued that the appellants have not questioned the impugned judgment with regard to statutory bonus, but only questioned it to the extent of grant of gratuity. 4. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is correct that the appellants-writ respondents have questioned the judgment in toto and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. We have examined the impugned judgment and we are of the considered view that impugned judgment is legal and sound, needs no interference. The Writ Court after examining the pleadings of the parties rightly came to the conclusion that the appellants-writ respondents have wrongly made order dated 29th September, 2011 (Annexure P-3) and accordingly, came to be quashed and set aside. 6. This Court has dealt with the issue of gratuity in two writ petitions, i.e. CWP No. 2447/2011, titled as Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur versus Nag and CWP No. 2457/2011, titled as Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur versus Gorja, decided on 26.4.2011 and held that daily wagers are also entitled to gratuity. The Writ Court has rightly held the writ petitioners in writ petitions, supra, entitled for release of gratuity. It is apt to reproduce para-5 of the said judgment : “5. Coming to the facts of the case, the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority in the impugned orders, after the required inquiry, has come to the conclusion that the employees concerned are having continuous service, as required under the Act and they are entitled for gratuity in terms of the Act. Coming to the facts of the case, the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority in the impugned orders, after the required inquiry, has come to the conclusion that the employees concerned are having continuous service, as required under the Act and they are entitled for gratuity in terms of the Act. Since the petitioner is bound under law to provide grauity and there being no dispute as to the calculation either, we find no merit in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.” 7. Now coming to the release of bonus, the Court has rightly held that the writ petitioners are entitled for bonus and appellants were directed to release the bonus alongwith interest in favour of the writ petitioners. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that provisions of Bonus Act, 1965 are not applicable, which is not legally tenable. 9. This Court in CWP No. 546 of 1993, titled as HPSEB & others versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court & others alongwith other connected matters, held that provisions of Sections of the Bonus Act, 1965 are applicable to temporary, ad-hoc, permanent and daily wager employees. It is apt to reproduce herein the relevant extract of the judgment referred to above : “The provisions, as extracted above, would clearly show that the payment of Bonus Act 1965 does not make any difference as to whether an employee is a temporary, ad-hoc, permanent, daily wager etc. The only pre-condition for entitlement is work in the establishment for not less than 30 days in that year. Of course, the question as to whether the Act would apply to a public sector undertaking in terms of Section 20, is a matter to be examined with reference to the factual matrix. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners is that whenever there is any dispute with regard to the bonus payable under the Act between the employer and employee, the same has to be referred as per Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.” 10. Having said so, no interference in the impugned judgment is required, hence upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.