Back
2007(6) Supreme 85
Supreme Court of india
(From Karnataka High Court)
C.K. Thakker & Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.
M.C. Chamaraju — Petitioner
versus
Hind Nippon Rural Industrial (P) Ltd. — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3889 of 2007
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11321 of 2006]
Decided on : 24-08-2007
(b)Constitution of India – Article 226 – Power of Judicial review has its limitations – When the Single Judge did not find it fit to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Controlling and Appellate Authorities, Division Bench was wrong in setting aside all the orders. (Para 14)
(c)Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 7 (4) – In interpreting the provisions of such beneficial legislation, liberal view should be taken – When a benefit has been extended by the Authorities under the Act to the workman by recording a finding that the applicant/ appellant had completed requisite service of five years to be eligible to get gratuity; in that case, even if another view was possible, the Division Bench should not have set aside the findings recorded by the Authorities under the Act and confirmed by a Single Judge by allowing the appeal of the employer. (Para 15)
(d)Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 7 (4) – Appellant was held entitled, by the authorities and the Single Judge, to Rs.16,785/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. – Considering the comparatively small amount involved in the appeal, the Division Bench should have refrained from quashing the orders. (Para 16)
Facts of the case :
In September, 1984, the appellant was appointed as Supervisor by the Managing Director of Agarwal Investments, Poddar Granites and Hind Nippon Co. Ltd. According to him, he worked as Supervisor in Poddar Mines at Sira up to 1990 and thereafter was transferred to other quarry. He worked at various places like Bellary, Sira and Chamaraya Nagar. He worked till February, 1993. From March, 1993, however, he was neither paid his salary nor served with any order of termination or dismissal. On September 27, 1993, the appellant addressed a letter asking the Management to settle his dues and also to pay gratuity under the Act. But it was not paid. He, therefore, approached the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bangalore by making an application under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972. The Controlling Authority held that the appellant was entitled to gratuity. Accordingly, an order was passed on May 26, 2003 that the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs.16,875/- towards gratuity. Since the respondent-employer had not paid the amount of gratuity within 30 days of the leaving of services by the workman, the payment was ordered to be made with interest @ 10% p.a. from June 12, 1993 till the date of payment.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the respondent-Company filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act. The Appellate Authority vide his order dated December 20, 2004 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority.
The Management challenged the said order in the High Court but the learned Single Judge also dismissed the petition confirming the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act. The appeal of the Management was allowed by the Division Bench setting aside all the orders and holding that the application filed by the workman was liable to be dismissed.
Findings of the Court :
Considering the concurrent findings of the authorities below and the comparatively small amount involved, the Division Bench should not have interfered.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
C.K. THAKKER, J.—
1.Leave granted.
2.This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated September 26, 2005, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 2458 of 2005 (L-PG). By the said order, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bangalore under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and also by a Single Judge of the High Court.
3.Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that according to the appellant, in September, 1984, he was appointed as Supervisor by Mr. V.K. Poddar, Managing Director of Agarwal Investments, Poddar Granites and Hind Nippon Co. Ltd. According to him, he worked as Supervisor in Poddar Mines at Sira upto 1990 and thereafter was transferred to other quarry. He worked at various places like Bellary, Sira and Chamaraya Nagar. He worked till February, 1993. From March, 1993, however, he was neither paid his salary nor served with any order of termination or dismissal. On September 27, 1993, the appellant addressed a letter asking the Management to settle his dues and also to pay gratuity under the Act. But it was not paid. He, therefore, approached the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bangalore by making an application under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972. The Controlling Authority, after hearing both the parties and perusing the materials placed before him, held that the appellant was entitled to gratuity. Accordingly, an order was passed on May 26, 2003 that the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs.16,875/- towards gratuity. Since the respondent-employer had not paid the amount of gratuity within 30 days of the leaving of services by the workman, the payment was ordered to be made with interest @ 10% p.a. from June 12, 1993 till the date of payment.
4.Being aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the respondent-Company filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act. The Appellate Authority vide his order dated December 20, 2004 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority.
5.The Management challenged the said order by filing a writ petition in the High Court but the learned Single Judge also dismissed the petition confirming the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act. The aggrieved Management challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in intra court appeal and as stated above, the appeal of the Management was allowed by the Division Bench setting aside all the orders and holding that the application filed by the workman was liable to be dismissed.
6.The appellant has challenged the said order before this Court.
7.On July 10, 2006, notice was issued by this Court. Later on, the parties appeared and the matter was ordered to be posted for final hearing.
8.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Division Bench was wholly unjustified in setting aside the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act and confirmed by the learned Single Judge. It was also submitted that while setting aside the orders, the Division Bench has virtually re-appreciated the evidence which could not have been done and on that ground also, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. It was further submitted that a finding of fact was recorded by the Authorities under the Act that different units where the appellant had worked, were ‘one’ and there was ‘funcitonal unity’ and the appellant was entitled to gratuity since he had worked for more than five years. Such finding could not have been disturbed by the Division Bench. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench and confi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
