Karnataka High Court
Regional Provident Commissioner - Appellant
Versus
Regional Labour Commissioner - Respondent
Decided On : 06-29-84
W.P. : 11436 of 1983
Gratuity Act - Establishment - The court upheld the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act to the establishment of the Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, and ruled that the Act's provisions override any conflicting regulations governing gratuity payments.
Fact of the Case:
The third respondent, an Upper Division Clerk, resigned after 9 years and 9 months of service and applied for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The petitioner challenged the applicability of the Act to their establishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the establishment fell within the definition of 'establishment' under relevant state laws and that the Act's provisions override any conflicting regulations, citing the over-riding effect given under section 14 of the Gratuity Act.
Issues: Applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act to the establishment of the Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore.
Ratio Decidendi: The Act applies to establishments with ten or more employees, and its provisions override conflicting regulations, ensuring entitlement to gratuity as per the Act's criteria.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act to the establishment and affirming the entitlement to gratuity under the Act.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is by the Regional provident Fund Commissioner, bangalore, praying for quashing the order of the Assistant Labour commissioner (Central) allowing the application of the third respondent for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity act ('the Act' for short) which order has been confirmed by the appellate authority functioning under the Act.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The third respondent was working as an Upper Division Clerk on - the stablishment of the Regional Provident Fund commissioner, Bangalore. After putting in about 9 years and 9 months of service commencing from 20. 6. 1972, he resigned from service with effect from 3. 3. 1982. Thereafter on 14. 6. 1982, he made an application before the Assistant labour Commissioner (Central) under the provisions of the Act praying for the issue of a direction to the petitioner to pay gratuity calculated at the rates prescribed under the Act. That application was allowed by the second respondent by his order, copy of which is produced as Annexure-E. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority functioning under the Act under section 7 (7) of the Act. The appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
( 3 ) SRI. M. S. Padmarajaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the petitioner and the view taken to the contrary by the first and second respondent were untenable. Elaborating his contention, learned counsel submitted as follows: The Provident Fund Organisation was a trust constituted under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations act, 1962 by the Central Government. Therefore it is an instrumentality of the central Government. It has got its own rules regulating the conditions of service of its employees. Any claim for gratuity or other terminal benefits would be made and paid only under the regulations regulating the conditions of service and therefore the provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are not applicable. 3. As can be seen from the orders of the first and second respondents, the said authorities, after considering the provisions of Section 1 (3) read with Section 14 of the gratuity Act, have come to the conclusion that the provident fund trust was an establishment to which the provisions of the gratuity Act applied and further having regard to the over-riding effect given under section 14 of the Gratuity Act, the 3rd respondent was entitled to gratuity under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the correctness of the said view by the two authorities.
( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to extract the relevant part of Section 1 (3 ). It reads:"1. (3) It shall apply to - (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 twelve months". As can be seen from the above provision the Act applies to every establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to such establishments in a State in which ten or more persons are employed. There is no dispute that more than ten persons are employed on the establishment of the Provident fund. The only question for consideration is whether it is or it is not an establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in this State in relation to shops and establishments. In this State, inter alia, the three relevant laws which are in force are (i) Karnataka shops and Establishment Act, (ii) Payment of Wages Act, and (hi) Contract Labour act. If the establishment of the petitioner falls under the definition of establishment under any one of these Acts, the provisions of the Act gets attracted.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.