2000 Supreme(AP) 754

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL REDDY
Narra Koteswara Rao - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru - Respondent
Decided On : 09-29-00

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sec. 2(A)(ii), 4, 7(4) and 10(1) - Rule 10 (1) - Indian penal code 408, 420, 468 and 471 - Writ of Certiorari – Service – Misconduct of Employ - Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under of the constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for calling the records and quash the order made in on the file of the first respondent by declaring as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act - Petitioner who worked as manager (Administration) of the third respondent-Company moved the second respondent for payment of gratuity under sec, of the Payment of by filing an application under Payment of gratuity Rule - Second respondent by order dismissed the application holding that had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the third respondent establishment is having offices in several States and advising the petitioner to file a claim petition before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central ) - Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent in PGA -First respondent by the impugned order dismissed the appeal holding that the third respondent is having offices at and as such the appropriate Government for the establishment is the Central Government but not the State Government. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that the appropriate authority to deal with the application filed by the petitioner is the state Government as the third respondent at is registered as Factory and the same will fall only under Sec in any other case the State Government" and as such the authority under Act, as well as the appellate authority erred in dismissing the application stating that it is only an establishment, therefore, the petitioner has to move the Assistant commissioner of Labour - Respondent filed a counter admitting the fact of the petitioner having worked in third respondent establishment -Third respondent further stated that the petitioner has forged his date of birth and continued in service for years from after the age of superannuation and illegally received a sum of towards salary from in excess of what is payable to him, in respect of which a criminal Case was filed by the state against the petitioner in the Court of iv Metropolitan Magistrate, for offences punishable under IPC and the same is pending for trial -Further stated that both the authorities came to the conclusion that the third respondent has got establishments in and this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence, as second respondent has rightly held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity and it is only the controlling authority appointed by the Central Government that has got the jurisdiction to entertain the same in view of sec – Held, - In the case on hand, the second respondent dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner on the preliminary objection of jurisdiction - As no evidence was let in by either parties that the Administrative Office where the petitioner had worked controls the factory or all activities of the factory are routed through the Administrative Office - If once it is established that the entire activities being carried on by the third respondent at its factory are controlled and distributed, through the Administrative office, it definitely falls under the definition of factory - In view of the same, once the third respondent establishment is also a factory within the definition of Sec. 2 (m) of the Factories Act, Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable - May be the Administrative office has been registered as an establishment under A. P. Shops and establishments Act as a regulatory measure that will not take away it from the definition of a factory Once it is a factory for purpose of the Factories Act and also an establishment under the Shops and establishments Act, the same falls under sec. 2 (a) (ii ). Under Cl. (i) of Sec. 2 (a) where the establishment having branches in more than one State, the appropriate Government is the Central Government - If it falls under the definition of factory and also registered as an establishment, Sec. 2 (a) (ii) is attracted and the authority appointed by the State government is certainly having the jurisdiction to go into the dispute. In view of the same, the first and second respondents erred in coming to the conclusion that the authorities appointed by the State Government have no jurisdiction to decide the dispute - In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authority confirming the dismissal order passed by the second respondent cannot be held sustainable and the same is accordingly quashed and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent to entertain the application filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law - Writ petition is accordingly allowed.