Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Mauna M. Bhatt, J.
Junagadh District Panchayat - Appellant
Vs.
Ashokbhai Bhagvandas Chandwani & Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 3817 of 2022
Decided On : 18-03-2024
Gratuity - Service Counting - The court considered the service counting for the payment of gratuity and held that the workman would be entitled to gratuity for 33 years and 5 months of service, with the years in which the workman had completed 240 days being reckoned for payment of gratuity.
Fact of the Case:
The Junagadh District Panchayat challenged the award of the Controlling Authority and the order of the Appellate Authority regarding the payment of gratuity to a workman who had superannuated. The petitioner argued that the initial service rendered by the workman prior to his regularisation was erroneously counted, and the provision of Gujarat Civil Service Rules should be applied instead of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the submissions and held that the workman would be entitled to gratuity for 33 years and 5 months of service, with the years in which the workman had completed 240 days being reckoned for payment of gratuity. The petitioner was directed to pay gratuity to the respondent-workman by counting the number of years of service, not beyond 33 years, and those years in which the workman had completed 240 days.
Issues: The issues involved the erroneous counting of the workman's initial service, the applicability of the Gujarat Civil Service Rules, and the jurisdiction of the Payment of Gratuity Act in the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalappa Lingappa vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. and held that the years in which the workman had completed 240 days are to be reckoned for payment of gratuity, not beyond 33 years and 5 months of service.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the rule was discharged.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Parth Patel and learned Assistant Government Pleader waive service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. The Junagadh District Panchayat has filed this petition challenging the award of the Controlling Authority dated 10.09.2020 in Gratuity Application No.10 of 2019 and order of Appellate Authority dated 28.12.2021 in Gratuity Application No.97 of 2021. By the order dated 10.09.2020, the Controlling Authority has directed to pay gratuity of Rs.2,82,432/- with simple interest @ 10% after 30 days from the date of retirement. The order of the Controlling Authority, Junagadh has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.12.2021, in Gratuity Appeal No.97 of 2021.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Parth Patel for the respondent workman.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the award of Controlling Authority, Junagadh dated 10.09.2020 is erroneous since it has erroneously counted the initial service rendered by the workman prior to his regularisation. The workman was offered work as a daily-wager w.e.f. 01.12.1984 and thereafter taken on work charge establishment on 01.10.1988. After 01.10.1988, he was taken on Hangami establishment on 01.10.1993 and he superannuated on 30.04.2018. The workman superannuated as Class-III employee. At the time of superannuation, he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.40,530/- and thus, he had rendered 28 years of service by counting the service from 01.10.1988 till the date of superannuation. Since the Controlling Authority had counted his earlier service from of initial appointment, the order is erroneous. Further, the workman is receiving pension and other retiral benefits and therefore, provision of Gujarat Civil Service Rules (for short ‘G.C.S.R.’) would be application and therefore, as per G.C.S.R., the workman would be entitled to gratuity for 33 years and 5 months’ service and therefore, the order of Controlling Authority counting more number of years of service is also erroneous. He submitted that since the provision of G.C.S.R. is applicable, the orders of Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority are erroneous. Further, both orders are without jurisdiction as the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act would not be application in the present case and G.C.S.R Rules would be applicable.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Parth Patel for learned advocate Mr. Shrineel Shah submitted that the order of Controlling Authority counting the service from the date of initial appointment is correct. Admittedly the workman had joined service w.e.f. 01.12.1984 and superannuated on 30.04.2018. Therefore, the workman completed 33 years and 5 months of service. He could not deny the fact that the workman is receiving pension and other retiral benefits on the basis of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, and therefore provisions of G.C.S.R. would be applicable. He submitted that now the law is settled that the initial date of service is required to be counted for payment of gratuity and therefore, the workman would be entitled to 33 years and 5 months of service for gratuity.
6. Considered the submissions. Admittedly, the workman joined on 01.12.1984 and retired on 30.04.2018 and his last drawn salary was Rs.40,530/- which the Controlling Authority in the order dated 10.09.2020 had taken into consideration. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalappa Lingappa vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. reported in (1981) 2 SCC 238, it is clear that for the period, the workman worked as temporary or casual workman is to be reckoned for counting the number of years of service for payment of gratuity. Thus, all the years from the date of his joining either as casual or temporary, where the workman had completed 240 days in a year are to be reckoned for payment of gratuity. In other words, the years in which the w
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the years in which the workman had completed 240 days are to be reckoned for payment of gratuity, not beyond 33 years and 5 months of service.
The initial date of service is required to be counted for the payment of gratuity, and the years in which the workman had completed 240 days are to be reckoned for the determination of the number of ....
The initial date of service is required to be counted for the payment of gratuity, and all the years from the date of joining, either as casual or temporary, where the workman had completed 240 days ....
The initial date of service is required to be counted for payment of gratuity, and the years in which the workman had completed 240 days, whether as casual or temporary workman, are to be reckoned fo....
The initial date of service is required to be counted for payment of gratuity, and all the years from the date of joining either as casual or temporary workman, where the workman had completed 240 da....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initial date of service is required to be counted for payment of gratuity, and all the years from the date of joining either as casual or ....
The main legal point established is that the entire length of service of an employee, including the period as a Daily Wager, should be considered for the determination of Gratuity.
There is no specific provision that daily wagers are not entitled to the payment of gratuity. Considering the provisions of the Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 particularly Sections 3 to 5 and 14, it c....
The entire service period, including daily-wage engagement, must be counted for calculating gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as it is a welfare legislation. Furthermore, an appeal fi....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
