SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 376

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
MANIBEN MAGANBHAI BHARIYA – APPELLANT(S)
Versus
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DAHOD & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal No. 3153 of 2022 [@ SLP (Civil) No. 30193 of 2017] with Civil Appeal No. 3154 of 2022 [@ SLP (Civil) No. 30834 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 3155 of 2022 [@ SLP (Civil) No. 30809 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 3156 of 2022 [@ SLP (Civil) No. 30820 of 2017], Civil Appeal No. 3157 of 2022 [@ SLP (Civil) No. 5392 of 2018] and Civil Appeal No. 3158 of 2022 [@ SLP (Civil) No. 29011 of 2018]
Decided On : 25-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s) Mr Sanjay Parikh, Sr.Adv. Ms. Pyoli, AOR Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, Adv. Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv. Mr. PV Surendranath, Sr Adv Mr. Subhash Chandran KR, Adv. Mr. Biju P Raman AOR Ms. Yogamaya MG, Adv Mr. Sawan Shukla, Adv
For Respondent(s) Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR

Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court held that Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court held that Anganwadi centers are establishments within the meaning of the Act and that the honorarium paid to Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers is wages within the meaning of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were Anganwadi workers and helpers who had been denied gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority had held that they were entitled to gratuity, but the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court had reversed those orders.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that Anganwadi centers are establishments within the meaning of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and that the honorarium paid to Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers is wages within the meaning of the Act. The Court also held that the provisions of the Act apply to Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers.

Issues: Whether Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Anganwadi centers are establishments within the meaning of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and that the honorarium paid to Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers is wages within the meaning of the Act. The Court also held that the provisions of the Act apply to Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned Judgment of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court. The Court held that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 apply to Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers working in Anganwadi centers.

JUDGMENT

Rastogi, J.:

1. I have had the advantage of going through the judgment penned by my brother Abhay S. Oka, J. I entirely agree with the conclusions which my erudite Brother has drawn, based on the remarkable process of reasoning. I wish to add few lines and express my views not because the judgment requires any further elaboration but looking for the question of law that emerged of considerable importance.

2. The moot question which has been raised in the instant appeals for our consideration indeed is a question which may not only determine the rights of the contesting appellants working as Anganwadi workers/helpers who are discharging a pivotal role in the society at the grassroot level and are the role model of the ICDS scheme which is one of the extended arm of the Ministry of Women and Child Development, at the given time, it may also give a thought process to the Legislature to consider as to whether the applicability of gratuity being a social security measure, be extended to the employees who served the establishment in an organized or unorganized sector and, in one way or the other, contributing in the sustainable development of the nation.

3. Looking to the large number of persons working in the organized/unorganized sector by passage of time, different social security legislations have been introduced in this largest democratic country, which can be divided into two broad categories, namely, the contributory and non-contributory. The contributory laws are those which provide for financing of the social security programmes by contributions paid by employees and employers and in some cases supplemented by contributions/grants from the Government. At the same time, we have major non-contributory laws such as the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with which we are presently concerned.

4. When we talk about social security legislations, two broad categories are social insurance legislation and social assistance legislation. In social insurance, benefits are generally made available to the insured persons under the condition of having paid the required contributions and fulfilling certain eligibility conditions and as regards social assistance, the beneficiaries receive benefits as a matter of right, but they do not have to make any contributions and to support thereof, the finance is made available either by the State or a source provided by the State/Central Government.

5. Before the enactment of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”), there were two State Laws providing for payment of gratuity. These were the Kerala Industrial Employees’ Payment of Gratuity Act, 1970 and the West Bengal Employees’ Payment of Gratuity Act, 1971. The question of having a central legislation on the subject was discussed at length in the Labour Minister’s Conference held on many occasions and after general consensus was reached, the Central Legislation was enacted in the form of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was brought into force on 16th September, 1972.

6. When we talk about the mandate of the Act 1972, if one looks into the scheme in a holistic manner, gratuity is a reward for good, efficient and faithful service rendered for a considerable period and the employee who remains in continuous service for 5 years or more including superannuation/retirement/resignation/untimely death becomes qualified to claim gratuity in terms of the computation as has been provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972 which covers in its fold, the large sector of organized/unorganized workers/employees who are employed in various class of establishments covered under Section 1(3)(a) & (b) and also notified by the Central Government under Section 1(3)(c) of the Act 1972. Such of the employees working under the establishme


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top