Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 1186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BATTU DEVANAND, A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, JJ.
The Managing Director, West Godavari Coop Sugars Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 869 of 2025
Decided On : 25-11-2025
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Gratuity and Labor Relations
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Natural Justice - The dismissal of the Writ without notice to the claimants was challenged as a violation of principles of natural justice but was found tenable given the minor amounts involved and the practical circumstances considered. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The employer contested the entitlement of workmen based on a claim for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, arguing for a lower rate applicable to seasonal workers. The Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, confirming previous administrative decisions.
Findings of Court:
The concurrent findings of the original controlling authority and appellate authority on the entitlement for gratuity were upheld, being deemed reasonable and justified.
Issues: Whether the learned Single Judge properly dismissed the Writ Petition without notice, and whether the gratuity entitlements were correctly assessed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the learned Single Judge's decision to be well-reasoned, affirming the applicability of 15 days' gratuity per year and the empathetic handling of the workmen's challenges in pursuing claims.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellant : Y.V. Anil Kumar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of writ petition and factual background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. employer's arguments regarding gratuity. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. court's reasoning on appeals and procedural fairness. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. concluding insights on the adequacy of the learned single judge's decision. (Para 12) |
| 5. conclusion of the appeal. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.
Introductory:-
1. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.1461 of 2024 under orders dated 25.01.2024 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Writ Petitioner therein filed the present appeal.
Factual Matrix:
2. (i) Respondent Nos.3, 7 to 9, 14 to 21, 26 to 28, 34 to 42, 44 to 55 and 59 are said to be the workmen / N.M.Rs. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru in P.G. Case No.5 of 2012 and batch, considered the case of the employees in the respective cases, as to payment of gratuity in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act for a period of 15 days instead of 7 days for every completed period of service and passed orders in favour of the workmen under orders dated 28.05.2022, rejecting the ground of the employer that gratuity is payable at the rate of 7 days for every completed year of service treating the workmen as seasonal workers and adopting the principal that the gratuity payable at the rate of 15 days per year will apply but not that of seasonal employment, considering that the organisation in which the workmen served is a factory but not a seasonal employment.
(ii) Assailing the said orders, the employer filed an appeal in terms of terms of Payment of Gratuity Act before the Appellate Authority and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru.
(iii) Having suffered dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the orders of the Controlling Authority / Original Authority, Writ Petition W.P.No.1461 of 2024 is filed.
(iv) The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ at the admission stage observing that there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondent workmen, in view of the fact that the entitlement to be decided is not substantial and would range between Rs.13,000/- to Rs.23,000/- in respect of his employee and the total value involved itself is Rs.6,67,725/- as per the orders of the Original Authority by taking note of the difficulties of all the workmen in engaging an advocate appearing before the High Court and the financial implications involved thereon, while confirming the concurrent findings of the Original Controlling Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Labour, dated 28.05.2022 and the orders of the Appellate Authority and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, dated 05.11.2023.
(v) Questioning the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 25.01.2024 in the Writ Petition, the present appeal is filed.
Case of the writ petitioner / employer / appellant:
3. (i) Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not meant for the workmen/unofficial respondents. Some of them died during the pendency of the claim. The legal representatives are also not brought on record.
(ii) As per the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, employees employed in seasonal establishments are entitled for gratuity is at the rate of ‘7’ days for each completed year of service. Whereas the entitlement claimed and confirmed at ‘15’ days for each completed year of service is erroneous. The workmen must have worked a minimum of 240 days per year continuously for five years for such entitlement. Therefore, the orders of Controlling Authority, Appellate Authority and in the Writ are unsustainable.
4. At the stage of admission and notice, the matter is heard.
5. Heard Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Perused the material available on record.
Arguments in the appeal:
For the appellant:
6. (i) The disposal of the Writ Petition without n
