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

1993 Supreme(Pat) 268

PATNA HIGH COURT
B.K. ROY, R.N. PRASAD, JJ.
Employers in relation to the Management of Kargali Colliery of Central Coal-fields Limited
Employers in relation to the Management of Bokaro Colliery of Central Coal-fields Ltd
Employers in relation to the Management of Kathara Area and Jarangdih Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd.
Employers in relation to the Management of Dhori Area of Central Coalfields Ltd. - Petitioners
Versus
The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad and others - Respondents
CWJC No. 1942 & 1941 of 92 (R), CWJC No. 3286 & 3287 of 92 (R)
Decided on : 8.7.93

Advocates appeared:
For the petitioner in all the above cases: Mr. M.N. Banerjee
For the respondents in all the above cases: M/s P.K. Sinha and D.C. Ghose

Headnote:Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (as amended by Act 37/86), Sec. 2 (e), 3 (e), 5 (1) & 14-scope of-petitioner initially appointed by the Central Govt.-on constitution and establishment of National Coal Development Corporation option was asked from them-the petitioners opted to serve with NCDC- a per, son building post under Central or State Govt. does not come within the purview of the ‘employee' under provisions of the Act-but latter became employee under the Corporation and services rendered under the Central Govt. was preserved-on option the service conditions was also maintained-the provisions of the Act has overriding effect-right of an employee to receive gratuity has been secured the scheme of the Act being beneficial and intend to give benefit to the employees and can not be interpreted in the manner to trustiate the scheme of the enactment-there is nothing to show that in the option exercised any restriction was put in obtaining gratuity-on perusal of circulars and (agreements it is manifest that ceiling limit as prescribed in Sec. 2 (e) has been removed-employees are entitled for gratuity under the Act-1980 (1) SCC 4, 1991 (1) PLJR 81. 1982 (2) LLJ 334. AIR 1981 SC 1685, 1986 (53) FLR 550, 1991 (63) FLR 510, 484 (3) SCC 518, 1981 LIC 340, AIR 1985 SC 1759, 1990 (1) PLJR 21, AIR 1984 SC 1064 and AIR 1985 SC 356, AIR 1987 Pat 96 (Paras 8, 10 & 11)

       

R.N. PRASAD, J.

As the common question of facti and law are involved in these cases, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In all the writ applications, the management of different collieries, namely, the Management of Kargali Colliery of Central Coal Fields Limited the Management of Bokaro Colliery of Central Coal Fields Limited; the Management of kathra. Area and Jagarnathdih Colliery of Central Coalfields Limited, and the management of Dhori Area of Central Coal Fields Limited respectively are the petitioners and the respondents are their employees.

2. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ applications has prayed for quashing the order dated 18.6.1991 contained in Annexure 16 to the writ applications passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central Hazaribagh), respondent no. l, the controlling authority, allowing the applications filed on behalf of the respondent-employees for payment of additional amount of gratuity under the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the order dated 13.3.1992, 14.3.1992, 13.3.1992 and 12.3.1992 respectively contained in Annexure 18 to the writ applications passed by the Regional labour Commissioner (Central,) the appellate authority, respondent no. 1, confirming the order of the controlling authority.

3. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The respondent-employees were initially appointed in different collieries which were State Collieries belonged to the Government of India. The Government of India was the owner of those collieries and were managed departmentally. Actually those collieries belong to British Railway Companies which were privately managed and were nationalised by the Government of India in the year 1930. The collieries were placed under the Ministry of Railway/Railway Board up to 31.5.1944 and thereafter under the department of Supply for some time and later under the department of production, Government of India up to 30.9.1956 for administration-and management. Government of India established a Government company, namely, National Coal Development Corporation Limited, with effect from 1.10.1956. The State collieries and their various units were transferred to the said National Coal Development Corporation Limited with effect from 1.10.1956. Subsequently, the National Coal Development Corporation Limited was renamed as Central Coal Field Limited with effect from 1.11.1975. When the transfer of the State Collieries took place to National Coal Development Corporation Limited, the respondent employees were given option vide Annexure 1 to the writ applications as to whether they would serve the Corporation on the same tenure, the same. remuneration, the same seniority, the same terms and conditions and the same rights and privileges as to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund and other matter, as would have been admissible to them had they continued to be in Government Service. The respondent-employees opted the option as mentioned above. The respondent employees thereafter continued to work and the Corporation which was later on named as Central Coal Field Limited till their superannuation. They were paid all their post retirement benefits as per the Central Government rules. The respondent employees after their superannuation filed an application under the provisions of the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972, hereinafer referred to as 'the Act', claiming therein that they are entitled to higher amount of gratuity under the provisions of the Act.

4. The stand of the petitioner before the Controlling Authority, respondent no. 2, was that as the respondent employees were central Government employees and bad opted to be governed by the service conditions as applicable to the Central Government employees and they have been paid whatever amount was due under the said service conditions, they cannot claim any further amount of gratuity under the provisions of the Act and also that they were not employees within the meaning of th





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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