Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1095 (HP)

Executive Engineer, HPSEBL v. Madan Lal Negi

2018-06-14

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. In this writ petition, the respondent-establishment (petitioner herein) before the Controlling Authority-cum Labour Officer under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has challenged the order Annexure P-4 dated 20.9.2014 passed by the Joint Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the Act in case No.JLC/HP/Gratuity/5-2/2013, whereby the order Annexure P-2, dated 20.11.2012 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Act has been modified and a sum of Rs. 57,254/- assessed towards gratuity payable for the period 26.07.1985 to 31.12.1997 to the claimant-workman (respondent herein). 2. As per the undisputed facts, the claimant-workman was engaged as Beldar by the respondent-establishment in the year 1985. His services were regularized in the year 1998 as T-Mate. He, however, was denied the benefit of gratuity payable to him under the provisions of the Act during the period he remained working as Beldar on daily wages basis. He, therefore, preferred claim petition Annexure P-1 before Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Authority under the Act, which was allowed vide order Annexure P-2 and a sum of Rs. 8,998.84/- was ordered to be paid towards gratuity to the claimant-workman together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the payment is made. The respondent-establishment has not assailed this order. It is, however, the claimant-workman, who preferred the appeal Annexure P-3 to this writ petition, which has been allowed vide impugned order passed by learned Appellate Authority on 20.09.2014 Annexure P-4 and in modification of the order passed by the Controlling Authority, due and admissible amount payable to the claimant-workman towards gratuity was enhanced to Rs. 57,254/- along with interest @ 9% per annum till the same is actually paid. 3. It is this order, which is under challenge in the present petition. The complaint is that learned Appellate Authority has wrongly assessed the gratuity payable to the claimant-workman on the basis of last pay he drawn while working on regular basis. Such ground of challenge is not available to the respondent-establishment for the reasons that a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 50 of 2003, titled HPSEB & Another versus Balak Ram and another, decided on 1.6.2007 has held the assessment of the gratuity made on the basis of last pay drawn on regular basis is legal and valid. Such ground of challenge is not available to the respondent-establishment for the reasons that a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 50 of 2003, titled HPSEB & Another versus Balak Ram and another, decided on 1.6.2007 has held the assessment of the gratuity made on the basis of last pay drawn on regular basis is legal and valid. Similar is the view of the matter taken again by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2307 of 2016, titled Principal Secretary (Forest) and another versus Amar Chand and another, decided on 13.12.2017. 4. Hon’ble the apex Court in Netram Sahu versus State of Chhattisgarh and another, 2018 SCC Online SC 267, has also held that denial of his legitimate claim towards gratuity despite rendering continuous service for a long period (in that case 25 years) would be nothing but travesty of justice. The apex Court, while making no distinction between the services rendered on daily wage basis and on regular establishment, has held that both can be counted for the purpose of claiming and assessing the gratuity, if the services on daily wages are followed by regularization. 5. Such being the legal and factual position, the point in issue in this writ petition is covered in favour of the claimant-workman. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed and the impugned order upheld. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 6. A sum of Rs. 94,775/- lying deposited in this case is ordered to be released to the claimant-workman together with interest upto date by remitting the same to his account, particulars whereof find mention in para 6 of the application.