K. MADHAVA REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE four appeals raise a common question of law as to the mode of computing the amount of gratuity payable to a workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act 39/72) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The D. B. R. Mills Ltd. is a Public Ltd. Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company ). The appellant herein is the employer within the meaning of S. 2 (f) of the Act and is liable to pay gratuity u/s 4 of the Act to its employees who have been in continuous service as defined u/s 2 (c) of the Act. There is no dispute that the appellant Company is the employer and the third respondent in each of these writ Appeals is its employee. Under sub-s. (2) of S. 4 of the Act, for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months the employer is under an obligation to 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 employees claim that in computing the continuous service Sundays and public holidays on which days the Establishment is closed or the employees are given a holiday should also be taken into account and if they have been in employment for a period of 240 days in a year, they should be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year. Further the rate of wages payable should be calculated for the actual number of days in a month after excluding Sundays, and at that rate, fifteen days wages for every completed year of service should be paid to them. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act cum the Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Hyd. , second respondent herein, accepted their claim in his order dated 25/08/1983. The employer preferred an appeal against the order and the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyd. (twin Cities) first respondent herein, confirmed the said order and dismissal the appeal.

( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge before whom these orders were challenged did not accept the contention of the appellant-company that the public holidays and Sundays should be excluded in computing 240 days for purpose of determining whether the employers was in uninterrupted service for one year and dismissed the Writ Petition.

( 3 ) WE may dispose off at the outset the contention which was only feebly pressed that wages paid for the entire month should be taken as paid for all the 30 days in the month in determining the rate of wages and not as paid for the actual number of working days. This contention runs counter to the well accepted principle that wages payable to an employee for a month are wages paid for the actual number of days he has worked which are taken as 26 days in a month after excluding Sundays which are given as compulsory holidays for all establishments; the holiday on Sunday is earned by the employee by working on the remaining days of the month. The rate of wages has, therefore, to be arrived at by dividing the total amount of wages paid in a month by 26 days and not by 30 days. The argument to the contrary has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in D. W. Mills Ltd. v. M. P. Buch (1980, Labour and Industrial cases, 1052 ). The Supreme Court held that "the wages for 26 days are to be treated as monthly wages and not of days. "

( 4 ) THE Supreme Court observed : "ordinarily of course, a month is understood to mean 30 days, but the manner of gratuity payable under the Act to the employees who worked for 26 days a month. . . cannot be called perverse. . . . to indicate the calculating monthly wages as wages for 26 working days is not anything unique or unknown, we may refer to a passage from the judgment of this Court Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Workmen [1969-II L. L. J. 755], which disposed of several appeals arising out of an award made by the Industrial Tribunal. The expression "average of the basic wages" occurring in the scheme was explained by this Court as follows : The expres

Click Here to Read the rest of this document