Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Mauna M. Bhatt, J.
Municipal Commissioner, Vadodara Mahanagar Seva Sadan – Petitioner
Versus
Valjibhai Ranchhodbhai Rabari(Deceased) & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 84 of 2021
Decided On : 14-03-2024
Gratuity - Service Counting - The court upheld the decision of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority to count the entire length of service of the respondent-workman from the date of his initial appointment as a Daily Wager - Helper, leading to the award of Gratuity for the entire period of service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Vadodara Municipal Corporation, challenged the determination of Gratuity by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, which counted the service of the respondent workman from his initial appointment as a Daily Wager - Helper.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities rightly considered the entire length of service of the respondent-workman, as he had joined the services as a Daily Wager - Helper and was made permanent after a certain period, leading to the award of Gratuity for the entire period of service.
Issues: The issues revolved around the counting of the respondent-workman's service from his initial appointment as a Daily Wager - Helper for the purpose of determining Gratuity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the decision of the authorities by considering the endorsement in the service book and the lack of evidence to deny the respondent-workman's assertion of joining the services from the initial date.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upheld the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, and directed the payment of Gratuity to the respondent-workman.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Mr. Darshit Thakkar, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. Mr. Mayank Chavda, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Vadodara Municipal Corporation as petitioner has filed this petition challenging an order of Controlling Authority dated 03.04.2020 in Gratuity Case No.17 of 2018 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.09.2020 in Gratuity Appeal No.50 of 2020. It is case of the petitioner that both the authorities have erred in determining Gratuity by counting the service of respondent workman from 14.07.1993 to 01.02.2006.
3. Facts in brief, referred in the petition, are as under:
It is case of the respondent-workman that he was working as Helper with the petitioner-corporation with effect from 14.07.1993. Upon completion of 12 years of service, he was made permanent by an order dated 02.02.2006 and retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017. Upon retirement, he was paid Gratuity for the period from 02.02.2006 to 30.06.2017. Since the earlier period from his initial date of appointment, where he had worked as Daily Wager – Helper was not counted, he preferred an application before Controlling Authority registered as Gratuity Case No.17 of 2018, wherein Controlling Authority by counting the entire length of service awarded difference of Gratuity to be paid to the respondent-workman of Rs. 1,50,480/-. Interest at the rate of 10% was also awarded from 06.02.2018 till the actual date of payment. Aggrieved by order of the Controlling Authority dated 03.04.2020, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal registered as Gratuity Appeal No.50 of 2020. Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.09.2020 confirmed the order of Controlling Authority. Aggrieved by which, the present petition is filed.
4. Heard Mr.Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Darshit Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 and Mr.Mayank Chavda, learned AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
5. Mr.Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that order of Controlling Authority dated 03.04.2020, and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.09.2020 are erroneous because from the service book, it is evident that the respondent-workmen had worked from 02.02.2006 till he attained the age of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2017. Amount of Gratuity was accordingly paid and therefore, both the orders are erroneous.
6. On the other hand, Mr.Darshit Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent-workman submitted that order of the Controlling Authority dated 03.04.2020, as also order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.09.2020 are just and legal because both the authorities have considered the entire length of service, since the respondent had joined service as Daily wager- Helper with the petitioner-corporation on 14.07.1993. This aspect is evident from the service book of the respondent-workman, that upon completion of certain years of services, as per the settlement, the respondent-workman was made permanent with effect from 02.02.2006. Thus, it is not in dispute that the workman was working prior to 02.02.2006. Both the authorities have therefore, rightly considered the affidavit of the workman that he had joined the services with effect from 14.07.1993.
7. Considered the submissions. Admittedly, the respondent-workman was working with the petitioner-Municipal Corporation. The payment of Gratuity, upon retirement was paid for the period from 02.02.2006 to 30.06.2017. It was case of the respondent-workman that he had joined the services on 14.07.1993 as Daily wager - Helper and was made permanent with effect from 02.02.2006. In the opinion of this Court, both the authorities have rightly considered the endorsement made in the service book that upon completion of certain years of service, only permanency can be given to Daily wager workman. Moreover, no document was produced by t
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.
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 in the judgment is that for the payment of gratuity, all the years from the date of joining, either as casual or temporary, where the workman had completed 240 days i....
The calculation of service for gratuity payment should consider the years in which the workman had completed 240 days, and the Payment of Gratuity Act and G.C.S.R. provisions should be interpreted ac....
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 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 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 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....
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....
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
