The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to all employees, including daily wage employees, and entitles them to gratuity for their entire service period, as interpreted by the Apex Court.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent/Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District to initiate proceedings against respondents 2 and 4 to recover arrears of gratuity.

2. Heard Sri B. Adaveeshaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner joins the services of the 4th respondent/ Government High School, G.Malligere, Mandya Taluk and District as a Group-D employee on 18-11-1971. After about 42 years of service, the petitioner retires on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-05-2013. On retirement, the petitioner was not paid complete gratuity which drew him to knock at the doors of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’ for short). The Controlling Authority, in terms of her order dated 05-03-2015 determines arrears of gratuity to be paid by the State Government to the petitioner at Rs.2,40,449/-. After the said order, the petitioner submits several representations for payment of arrears of gratuity. When nothing came about, he again knocks at the doors of the Labour Department seeking recovery of arrears of gratuity. The Labour Officer communicates to the 3rd respondent to initiate proceedings to recover gratuity as arrears of land revenue. Nothing happening thereafter, the petitioner is driven to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is an employee of Government and retires on attaining the age of superannuation after 42 years of service and is not paid complete gratuity on the ground that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wage employee and then his services came to be regularized. The learned counsel would submit that the very finding is erroneous as the Controlling Authority has referred to circulars of Government themselves and holds that gratuity should be paid in its entirety i.e., for all 42 years of service.

5. The learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Navya Shekhar would however, refute the submissions and on instructions has filed certain documents along with a memo and would submit that they may be taken as objections from the Department. The solitary finding and observations in those communications are that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis and that he has been regularized on a subsequent date. Gratuity is already paid from the date on which his services were regularized till his retirement. However, the same is denied for daily wage period on the score that the issue is pending before the Apex Court. She would submit that once the Apex Court would decide the issue, payment of gratuity would be settled on that basis.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The entry of the petitioner into the service of the 4th respondent/Government High School as a Group-D employee on 18-11-1971 and retiring on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-05-2013 are not in dispute. In the interregnum, it appears that the petitioner along with others was regularized in service in terms of the Government Order dated 01-01-1990 and gratuity is paid to the petitioner at Rs.1,92,700/- which is for the period between 01-01-1990 and 31-05-2013. The short payment of gratuity leads the petitioner before the Controlling Authority under the Act as gratuity to the petitioner for the service he has rendered between 18-11-1971 and 01-01-1990 close to 19 years was taken away.

8. The Controlling Authority after placing reliance on the Government orders issued by the State Government from time to time and judgments rendered on the issue of entitlement of gratuity to an employee even if he is on daily wages, allows the claim, determines arr