Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2017 (ALL)

U. P. S. R. T. C. v. State of U. P.

2019-08-28

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2019
ORDER : Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Sri Mritunjay Mohan Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Surendra Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4. 2. The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 16.07.2016 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.P., Kanpur in P.G. Case No. 105 of 2014 and also the order dated 20.01.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Kanpur whereby the appeal filed there against has been rejected. 3. The factual background of the case as reflected from the records indicates that an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent-workman whereupon a reference was made under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 The I.D. Act, 1947, registered as Adjudication Case No. 34 of 1993, before the Presiding Officer, U.P. Kanpur. The question referred for adjudication was as follows:- ^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk Jfed Jh vkjŒ,lŒ 'kekZ iq= Jh >Ccw yky ifjpkyd dks fnukad 2-6-1992 dks dk;Z ls i`Fkd oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ fdl frfFk ,oa vU; fdl fooj.k ds lkFk\** 4. The aforementioned reference was answered by the Labour Court vide its award dated 27.05.1995 in the following terms:- ^^blfy, esjs fopkj ls Jfed vkjŒ,lŒ 'kekZ dk uke Árh{kk lwph ls dkV dj gVk;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh esa fu;e dk iw.kZr% ikyu ugha fd;k x;k gSA blfy, esjk vfHker gS fd Jh vkjŒ,lŒ 'kekZ dks lsok lekfIr dh frfFk fnukad 2-6-1992 ls iqu% lsok esa ifjpkyd ds in ij fy;k tk, vkSj Árh{kk lwph ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dh frfFk ls vfHkfu.kZ; dh frfFk rd dh vof/k ds chp dk mls vk/kk vU; HkRrk lfgr fn;k tk;sA vk/kk osru blfy, fd mlus bl chp fdlh dk;Z dks vatke ugha fn;k vkSj vk/kk osru fn;s tkus ls dkuwu dk ea'kk Hkh iwjk gks tkrk gSA mDr Hkqxrku vfHkfu.kZ; ds Ádkf'kr gksus ds ,d ekg ds vUnj fn;k tk;sA** 5. The award of the Labour Court was put to challenge in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. Vs. The award of the Labour Court was put to challenge in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. Vs. Ram Shankar Sharma & Ors., Writ C. No.34125 of 1995 which came to be decided in terms of judgment and order dated 07.02.2013, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- "...This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court dated 27.05.1995 passed in Adjudication Case No. 34 of 1993 by which the Labour Court has reinstated the respondent workman with 50% back wages. The Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was working in the Corporation as a 'Conductor' on a regular basis and, therefore, has reinstated the workman with 50% back wages. Under the interim orders of this Court, the petitioner has already reinstated the workman and counsel for the workman states that he is working since then without any hatch. The back wages were stayed by this Court. Insofar as the back wages are concerned, the Labour Court has granted 50% back wages to the workman for the period when he was not working up to the date of passing of the award. In view of the fact that the Labour Court has not recorded any finding with regard to the fact as to whether the workman was gainfully employed or not during the period the back wages have been awarded, which could only be justified to reduce the back wages to 50% what has been granted by the Labour Court. Thus, in the interest of justice, the award of the Labour Court is confirmed subject to the modification that the back wages are reduced to half of what has been granted in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. Vs. U.N. Pandey reported in 2006 (1) SCC 479 . The amount, which is due to the workman shall be paid to him within the next two months upon his making an application. The Writ Petition stands disposed of as above. No. costs." 6. Upon his superannuation, the respondent-workman filed an application before the Controlling Authority under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 The P.G. Act, 1972 The P.G. Act, 1972 for a direction, which was registered as P.G. Case No. 105 of 2014. The Writ Petition stands disposed of as above. No. costs." 6. Upon his superannuation, the respondent-workman filed an application before the Controlling Authority under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 The P.G. Act, 1972 The P.G. Act, 1972 for a direction, which was registered as P.G. Case No. 105 of 2014. The claim application was allowed and a direction was issued for payment of gratuity totalling to Rs. 4,45,022/- along with 10% interest from the date of filing of the claim application upto the date of payment. Against the aforementioned order the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 7(7) of the P.G. Act, 1972, registered as P.G. Appeal No. 09 of 2016, which has been rejected vide order dated 20.01.2017 and the earlier order passed by the Controlling Authority directing payment of Rs. 4,45,022/- has been affirmed. 7. Challenging the aforementioned orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have erred in failing to consider that the respondent no. 4 was never treated to be a regular employee and no documentary evidence was placed on record by the workman showing that he was granted regularisation and as such the computation of the amount of gratuity payable to the workman is based on conjectures. 9. Per contra, Sri Surendra Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondent-workman was selected in a regular selection held by the Corporation in the year 1980 and was placed in the wait list of conductors, and as such the Corporation could not take a stand that he was appointed on a daily-wage basis. Placing reliance upon the award passed by the Labour Court and the judgment of this Court in Writ-C No. 34125 of 1995 it is contended that the respondent-workman superannuated from service working as a conductor and as such the claim made by him for gratuity had rightly been allowed. It is further submitted that the P.G. Act, 1972 applies to all employees whether they are regular or not, the only condition being that the employee must have worked for five years and that gratuity is to be computed on the basis of the last drawn wages. 10. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records. It is further submitted that the P.G. Act, 1972 applies to all employees whether they are regular or not, the only condition being that the employee must have worked for five years and that gratuity is to be computed on the basis of the last drawn wages. 10. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. The records of the case indicate that the reference made with regard to the legality/validity of the termination of the respondent-workman w.e.f. 02.06.1992 was answered by the Labour Court by recording a conclusion that the removal of the name of the respondent-workman from the wait list was not as per the rules. It was directed that the workman be reinstated on the post of conductor from the date of his termination i.e. 02.06.1992 and further that he may be granted 50% back wages from the date of removal of his name from the wait list till the date of the award. The award of the Labour Court was confirmed by this Court in its judgment dated 07.02.2013 in Writ-C No. 34125 of 1995 subject to the modification that the back wages were reduced to half of what had been granted. 12. It is an admitted position between the parties that the judgment of this Court dated 07.02.2013 passed in Writ-C No. 34125 of 1995, confirming the award subject to the only modification that the back wages were reduced to half of what had been granted, was not subjected to any further challenge by either of the parties, and was allowed to attain finality. 13. The respondent-workman continued to work as a conductor with the petitioner-Corporation and attained his superannuation working in the said capacity. 14. The stand taken by the petitioner-Corporation that the respondent continued to work as a daily wager as on the date of his superannuation is not consistent with the material evidence available on record. The inconsistency in the stand of the petitioner-Corporation with regard to gratuity payable to the respondent-workman is also reflected from the ambivalent position taken by the petitioner-Corporation before the Controlling Authority. On one hand, a stand was taken that the last drawn wages of the workman together with the dearness allowance was Rs. 16,403/- and on the basis of the same the total amount of gratuity due to the workman was said to be Rs. 2,93,361/- as on 31.07.2011. On one hand, a stand was taken that the last drawn wages of the workman together with the dearness allowance was Rs. 16,403/- and on the basis of the same the total amount of gratuity due to the workman was said to be Rs. 2,93,361/- as on 31.07.2011. On the other hand the witness appearing on behalf of the Corporation before the Controlling Authority stated that the calculation of gratuity was made treating the workman to be a daily wager, and on the basis of the last drawn wages at the rate of Rs. 71.34/- per day an amount of Rs. 49,928/- was computed towards gratuity. In his cross-examination the witness stated that the workman concerned was appointed as a daily wager in the year 1980 and since his year of birth was 1953 he would have superannuated upon attaining the age of 58 years in the year 2011. 15. The Controlling Authority upon considering the documentary and oral evidence and the arguments advanced by the parties held that for the purposes of computation of gratuity under the provisions of the P.G. Act, 1972 what was relevant was the length of service and the last drawn wages, and the question as to whether the workman had worked as a daily wager or as a regular employee was of no consequence. Taking notice of the fact that there was no dispute between the parties with regard to the length of service which was admitted to be 31 years and in the absence of any clear stand by the employer-Corporation with regard to the last drawn wages the claim made by the workman was accepted and the computation of gratuity was made. 16. The Appellate Authority upon taking notice of the award dated 27.05.1995 passed by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 34 of 1993 and the judgment of this Court dated 07.02.2013 passed in Writ-C No. 34125 of 1995 in terms of which the award had been confirmed subject to the modification that the back wages were reduced from 50% to 25%, has drawn an inference that the workman superannuated as a regular employee of the Corporation and the computation of gratuity by the Controlling Authority on the basis of a last drawn wages had rightly been made. The Appellate Authority also took note of the fact that the recovery certificate dated 09.08.2007 pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court had been issued wherein the amount under recovery was computed treating the workman to be a regular employee. The finding of the Controlling Authority that for the purposes of gratuity the status of the workman as a daily wager or as a regular employee was inconsequential and what was to be seen was the length of service and the last drawn wages, was reiterated by the Appellate Authority. In view of the admitted position between the parties with regard to the length of service being 31 years the computation of gratuity made by the Controlling Authority on the basis of the last drawn wages as claimed by the workman was affirmed. 17. The sheet anchor of the argument of the petitioner-Corporation is that the respondent was never appointed in a regular capacity nor was he granted regularisation against any post and as such the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 19724 have erred in allowing his claim for payment of gratuity. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the respondent-workman that on the basis of a regular selection held by the Corporation in the year 1980 he was placed in the wait list of conductors and that the stand of the Corporation that he had been engaged as a daily wager was incorrect. It was further submitted that the award of the Labour Court had directed his reinstatement on the post of conductor w.e.f. 02.06.1992 and in terms of the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-C No. 34125 of 1995 the award of the Labour Court was confirmed subject to the only modification that the back wages were reduced to half of what had been granted. 18. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties the relevant statutory provisions of the P.G. Act, 1972 may be adverted to:- "2. 18. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties the relevant statutory provisions of the P.G. Act, 1972 may be adverted to:- "2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- x x x x x (b) "completed year of service" means continuous service for one year; (c) "continuous service" means continuous service as defined in Section 2-A; x x x x x (e) "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; x x x x x (s) "wages" means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance. 2-A. Continuous service.--For the purpose of this Act,-- (1) An employee shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he has, for that period, been in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty without leave (not being absence in respect of which an order treating the absence as break in service has been passed in accordance with the standing orders, rules or regulations governing the employees of the establishment), lay-off, strike or a lock-out or cessation of work out due to any fault of the employee, whether such uninterrupted or interrupted service was rendered before or after the commencement of this Act; (2) where an employee (not being an employee employed in a seasonal establishment) is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1), for any period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under the employer-- (a) for the said period of one year, if the employee during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days, in the case of an employee employed below the ground in a mine or in an establishment which works for less than six days in a week; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for the said period of six months if the employee during the period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which the calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) ninety-five days, in the case of an employee employed below the ground in a mine or in an establishment which works for less than six days in a week; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case; Explanation.--For the purpose of clause (2), the number of days on which an employee has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which-- (i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or under any other law applicable to the establishment; (ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous year; (iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; and (iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks. (3) where an employee, employed in a seasonal establishment, is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1), for any period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under the employer for such period if he has actually worked for not less than seventy-five per cent of the number of days on which the establishment was in operation during such period. x x x x x 4. Payment of Gratuity.--(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,-- (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease: Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement: Provided further that in case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the Controlling Authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement. (2) For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned: Provided that in the case of a piece-rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment, and, for this purpose, the wages paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account: Provided further that in the case of 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 the rate of seven days' wages for each season. Explanation.--In the case of a monthly rated employee, the fifteen days' wages shall be calculated by dividing the monthly rate of wages last drawn by him by twenty-six and multiplying the quotient by fifteen. (3) The amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed ten lakh rupees. (4) For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable to an employee who is employed, after his disablement, on reduced wages, his wages for the period preceding his disablement shall be taken to be the wages received by him during that period, and his wages for the period subsequent to his disablement shall be taken to be the wages as so reduced. (5) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-- (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so causes; (b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited. (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment." 19. In terms of Section 2(e) of the P.G. Act, 1972, an "employee" has been defined as meaning 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. The only exclusion is in respect of persons holding a post under the Central Government or a State Government who are governed by any other Act or any Rules providing for payment of gratuity. 20. Section 4 of the P.G. Act, 1972 provides for payment of gratuity to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years, upon the occurrence of either the following contingencies: (i) on his superannuation, (ii) on his retirement, (iii) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 mandates that for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned. The expression "completed year of service" has been defined under Section 2(b) to mean continuous service for one year. The expression "completed year of service" has been defined under Section 2(b) to mean continuous service for one year. As per Section 2(c), "continuous service" means continuous service as defined in Section 2-A. Further, in terms of Section 2-A an employee shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he has, for that period, been in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty without leave (not being absence in respect of which an order treating the absence as break in service has been passed in accordance with the standing orders, rules or regulations governing the employees of the establishment), lay-off, strike or a lock-out or cessation of work out due to any fault of the employee, whether such uninterrupted or interrupted service was rendered before or after the commencement of this Act. 21. A conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions leads to the inference that gratuity becomes payable to an "employee" on his superannuation after he has rendered "continuous service", for not less than five years. The computation of the amount payable as gratuity is to be made at the rate of fifteen days' wages, for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned. The expression "completed year of service" has been defined under Section 2(b) as continuous service for one year and the term "continuous service" is defined under Section 2(c) as per the terms of Section 2-A of the P.G. Act, 1972 which is to mean uninterrupted service including service which may be interrupted on account of certain exigencies specified therein. 22. It, therefore, follows that the P.G. Act, 1972 does not make any distinction between an employee on the basis of the fact that the employee is paid daily wages or weekly wages or monthly wages. The only condition is that he should be employed by the employer on wages in an establishment covered by the P.G. Act, 1972 and that he should be in continuous service as required under Section 2-A and that he should have completed a minimum of five years of service in the said capacity. The only condition is that he should be employed by the employer on wages in an establishment covered by the P.G. Act, 1972 and that he should be in continuous service as required under Section 2-A and that he should have completed a minimum of five years of service in the said capacity. The computation of gratuity as per terms of Section 4 is to be made at the rate of fifteen days' wages for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months based on the rate of wages last drawn. 23. It is thus clear that an employee, subject to fulfillment of the other conditions, is entitled to gratuity for the period he was in employment of the employer irrespective of the fact whether his employment was of a regular nature or whether he was employed on a casual basis or temporary basis or as a daily wager. 24. In this regard reference may be had to the judgment in the case of Baban Vs. Estate Manager, Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2017 (152) FLR 17 wherein it was held as follows:- "15. This brings me to the first contentious issue raised as regards the manner of calculating the number of days worked so as to be entitled for gratuity. The primary requirement is that an employee must work continuously with an employer at least for 5 years so as to be eligible for gratuity, notwithstanding whether he has put in temporary service or as a daily wager or in any other manner." 25. The question as to whether benefit of gratuity could be denied to an employee who had been in more than 25 years of continuous service out of which 22 years were as a daily wager, fell for consideration in the case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (2018) 5 SCC 430 ; and upon considering the provisions contained under Section 2(e) read with Section 2-A of the P.G. Act, 1972, it was held that there was no justifiable reason to deny benefit of gratuity to the employee which was his statutory right, and the question as to from which date his services were regularised was of no consequence for the purposes of calculating the total length of service for computing the gratuity payable. 26. 26. In view of the foregoing discussions, it follows that the entitlement to receive gratuity flows from the provisions of the P.G. Act, 1972 and an "employee" having fulfilled the necessary preconditions for claiming entitlement in terms thereof would be liable to be paid the gratuity amount due to him irrespective of the fact whether his employment was of a regular nature or whether he was employed on a casual basis or temporary basis or as a daily wager. 27. In a case where the engagement was initially as a daily wager and subsequently the services were regularised the question as to from which date the services were regularised would be of no consequence for calculating the total length of service for claiming gratuity. 28. It may be noticed that the P.G. Act, 1972 was enacted to introduce a scheme for payment of gratuity for certain industrial and commercial establishments as a measure social security. The significance of the legislation lies in the acceptance of the principle of payment of gratuity as a compulsory statutory retiral benefit. The Act accepts, as a principle, compulsory payment of gratuity as a social security measure to wage earning population in industries, factories and establishments. The main purpose and concept of gratuity is to provide for terminal benefits to a workman upon his superannuation, or on his retirement or resignation, or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. 29. The P.G. Act, 1972 being thus a welfare legislation meant for the benefit of the employees who serve their employer for a long time, it would be the duty of the employer to pay gratuity amount to the employees rather than denying the benefit on some technical ground. 30. Applying the rule of beneficent construction, the provisions of the P.G. Act, 1972 are to be interpreted liberally so as to give it a wide meaning rather a restrictive meaning which may negate the very object of the enactment. A beneficial legislation, it is well settled, as to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intent underlying its enactment. 31. In construing a remedial statute courts are to give it the widest amplitude which its language would permit. The principle of applying a liberal construction to a remedial legislation has been emphasised in the Construction of Statues by Crawford The Construction of Statutes by Earl T. Crawford pp. 31. In construing a remedial statute courts are to give it the widest amplitude which its language would permit. The principle of applying a liberal construction to a remedial legislation has been emphasised in the Construction of Statues by Crawford The Construction of Statutes by Earl T. Crawford pp. 492-493 in the following terms:- "...Remedial statutes, that is, those which supply defects, and abridge superfluities, in the former law, should be given a liberal construction, in order to effectuate the purposes of the legislature, or to advance the remedy intended, or to accomplish the object sought, and all matters fairly within the scope of such a statute be included, even though outside the letter, if within its spirit or reason." 32. To a similar effect is the observation made by Blackstone in Construction and Interpretation of Laws Construction and Interpretation of Laws by Blackstone, by stating as under:- "It may also be stated generally that the courts are more disposed to relax the severity of this rule (which is really a rule of strict construction) in the case of statutes obviously remedial in their nature or designed to effect a beneficent purpose." 33. In the context of beneficial construction as a principle of interpretation, it has been observed in Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition by P. St. J. Langan as follows:- "...where they are faced with a choice between a wide meaning which carries out what appears to have been the object of the legislature more fully, and a narrow meaning which carries it out less fully or not at all, they will often choose the former. Beneficial construction is a tendency, rather than a rule." 34. Further, in the same treatise, in the context of industrial legislation, it has been stated as follows:- "Industrial legislation provides a fruitful field for the application of the tendency towards beneficial construction..." 35. The principle of applying a liberal construction to a labour welfare legislation was emphasised in the case of Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Management & Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 813 where in the context of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was observed as follows:- "35. ...We are aware that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted in the interest of employees. Management & Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 813 where in the context of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was observed as follows:- "35. ...We are aware that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted in the interest of employees. It is well settled that in construing the provisions of a welfare legislation, courts should adopt, what is described as a beneficent rule of construction. If two constructions are reasonably possible to be placed on the section, it follows that the construction which furthers the policy and object of the Act and is more beneficial to the employees, has to be preferred..." 36. The mode of interpretation of a social welfare legislation, in the context of the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, came up for consideration in the case of B.D. Shetty & Ors. Vs. CEAT Ltd. & Anr. (2002) 1 SCC 193 , and it was held as follows:- "12. ...a beneficial piece of legislation has to be understood and construed in its proper and correct perspective so as to advance the legislative intention underlying its enactment rather than abolish it. Assuming two views are possible, the one, which is in tune with the legislative intention and furthers the same, should be preferred to the one which would frustrate it." 37. The principle of applying a liberal construction to a beneficial legislation having a social welfare purpose was reiterated in the context of the P.G. Act, 1972 in the case of Allahabad Bank & Anr. Vs. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association (2010) 2 SCC 44 , and it was observed as follows:- "16. ...Remedial statutes, in contradistinction to penal statutes, are known as welfare, beneficent or social justice oriented legislations. Such welfare statutes always receive a liberal construction. They are required to be so construed so as to secure the relief contemplated by the statute. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that labour and welfare legislation have to be broadly and liberally construed having due regard to the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Act with which we are concerned for the present is undoubtedly one such welfare oriented legislation meant to confer certain benefits upon the employees working in various establishments in the country." 38. The Act with which we are concerned for the present is undoubtedly one such welfare oriented legislation meant to confer certain benefits upon the employees working in various establishments in the country." 38. A similar view was taken with regard to adopting the beneficial rule of construction in respect of social welfare legislation, particularly in the context of the P.G. Act, 1972 in the case of Jeewanlal Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act & Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 356 , wherein it was stated as follows:- "11. In construing a social welfare legislation, the court should adopt a beneficent rule of construction; and if a section is capable of two constructions, that construction should be preferred which fulfils the policy of the Act, and is more beneficial to the persons in whose interest the Act has been passed..." 39. Reference may also be had to the case of Bharat Singh Vs. Management Of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi & Ors. (1986) 2 SCC 614 , where purposive interpretation safeguarding the rights of have-nots was preferred to a literal construction in interpreting a welfare legislation, and it was held as follows:- "11. ...the court has to evolve the concept of purposive interpretation which has found acceptance whenever a progressive social beneficial legislation is under review. We share the view that where the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous effect must be given to them. Plain words have to be accepted as such but where the intention of the legislature is not clear from the words or where two constructions are possible, it is the court's duty to discern the intention in the context of the background in which a particular Section is enacted. Once such an intention is ascertained the courts have necessarily to give the statute a purposeful or a functional interpretation. Now, it is trite to say that acts aimed at social amelioration giving benefits for the have-nots should receive liberal construction. It is always the duty of the court to give such a construction to a statute as would promote the purpose or object of the Act. A construction that promotes the purpose of the legislation should be preferred to a literal construction. A construction which would defeat the rights of the have-nots and the underdog and which would lead to injustice should always be avoided..." 40. A construction that promotes the purpose of the legislation should be preferred to a literal construction. A construction which would defeat the rights of the have-nots and the underdog and which would lead to injustice should always be avoided..." 40. In the case at hand, the respondent-workman having been directed to be reinstated on the post of conductor with the petitioner-Corporation w.e.f. 02.06.1992 in terms of the award dated 27.05.1995 passed by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 34 of 1993 and the said award having been confirmed vide judgment dated 07.02.2013 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 34125 of 1995 with the only modification that back wages were reduced to half of what had been granted, and the workman subsequently having attained the age of superannuation, the order passed by the Controlling Authority allowing the claim for payment of gratuity after recording a finding that for the purposes of payment of gratuity under the provisions of the P.G. Act, 1972 what was mainly required to be seen was the existence of the employer-employee relationship, the total length of service and the last drawn wages, and the issue as to whether the employee had worked on daily wages or as a regular employee was of no consequence, cannot be faulted with. The length of service having been held to be admitted between the parties the computation of gratuity was made by the Controlling Authority on the basis of the claim made by the employee with regard to the last drawn wages. The Appellate Authority having affirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority for the self-same reasons the said order also requires no interference. 41. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material error or irregularity in the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority so as to warrant interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 42. No other point was argued by the counsel for the petitioner. 43. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.