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

1980 Supreme(Kar) 120

Karnataka High Court
BINNY LTD. - Appellant
Versus
COMMR.OF LABOUR - Respondent
Decided On : 06-30-80

The main legal point established is the interpretation of 'establishment' under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the determination of the appropriate Government for companies with operations in multiple states.

Headnote:

Payment of Gratuity - Appropriate Government - Act Section List: S. 2, S. 7 - The court discussed the interpretation of the term 'establishment' under S. 2 (a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and its application to a company owning factories in multiple states. The court emphasized the general meaning of 'establishment' and concluded that the appropriate Government for the petitioner-company is the Central government.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a public company with textile mills in multiple states, challenged the jurisdiction of the State Government's Controlling Authority to entertain a gratuity claim by a workman from its Bangalore factory. The dispute centered around the interpretation of 'establishment' and the appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner-company, owning factories in different states, should be considered an establishment with the main place of business in one state and a branch in another. It held that the appropriate Government for the petitioner is the Central government, and the State Government's Controlling Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the workman's application.

Issues: Interpretation of 'establishment' under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, determination of the appropriate Government for a company with factories in multiple states, and the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the term 'establishment' in the Act, the company's status as an establishment with branches in different states, and the legislative intent to have the Central government handle disputes for establishments with operations in multiple states.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the orders of the State Government's Controlling Authority were quashed. The workman was given the opportunity to make a fresh application before the Controlling Authority appointed by the Central Government.

( 1 ) THE short point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the appropriate Government under S. 2 of the Payment of Gratuity act, 1972 (in short, 'the Act') is the central Government in the case of the petitioner - Company, which admittedly owns textile mills and other industries in more than one State.

( 2 ) THE facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner which is a public Company has its registered office in Madras and owns a textile mill in the State of Tamil Nadu. It also owns a textile mill in Bangalore (Karnataka State) carrying on operations similar to those carried on in its madras factory. On an application under S. 7 of the Payment of Gratuity act, 1972, (in short, 'the Act') made by respondent-3, a workman of the petitioner's Bangalore factory, respondent-2 the Controlling Authority and respondent-1, the Appellate Authority appointed by the State Government under the Act, took the view that the appropriate Government in relaltion to the petitioner - Company is the state Government and not the Central government and, therefore, respondent-2 was competent to entertain the application and adjudicate the claim of respondent-3.

( 3 ) IS the petitioner - Company an establishment and if so, whether its factory in Bangalore is a branch of that establishment ?. If the Act had made a distinction between an establishment and a factory, how is the word 'establishment' to be interpreted these are the questions that arise for determination in this petition. The act came into force on 16-9-1972, S. 1 (3) of the Act reads:"it (the Act) shall apply to- (a) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company; (b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding tweleye months; (c) such other establishments or class of establishments, in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months, as the central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf. "section 2 (a) of the Act reads as:"in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) 'appropriate Government' means,- (i) in relation to an establishment (a) belonging to, or under the control of, the Central Government. , (b) having branches in more than one State. , (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, the Central government, (d) of a major port, mine, oilfield or railway company, the Central government, (ii) in any other case, the State Government;"under Rule 3 (1) of the Rules framed under the Act, which also came into force on 16-9-1972, the employer of an establishment to which the Act is applicable, has to submit a notice in Form - A to the Controlling authority of the area. Under Rule 3 (2) of the Rules, such employer has to submit a notice in Form 'b' to the controlling Authority of the Area,. There are other notices in Forms 'c' and 'd' to be submitted and displayed under Rules 3 (3) and 4 of the Rules. All these forms prescribed under the rules provide for the name and address of the establishment covered by the act. Form 'a' relates to notice of opening of the establishment; Form 'b' relates to notice of change in the earlier notice in Form 'a'; Form 'c' relates to notice of closure of the Establishment. Similarly, the forms prescribed under rule 5 of the Rules for excluding the husband from the ambit of the word 'family' (Form 'd'), for with-drawal of of such notice (Form 'e') and under rule 6 for making a fresh nomination (Form 'g') and the various other forms prescribed under the Rules for administering the provisions of the act, provide for the name and address of the establishment. These Rules and forms clearly indicate that the word 'establishment' is ueed in a general sense to include a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company and also es






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