Back
2007 Supreme(HP) 218
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
RAJIV SHARMA
H.P.S.E.B. - Appellant
Versus
BALAK RAM - Respondent
C.W.P. No. 50 of 2003
Decided On : 06/01/2007
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate, for the Petitioners; Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1.
Headnote:(i) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Section 7 - Gratuity admissibility - Payment of workman was employed as daily rated Beldar w.e.f. 22.8.1983 upto 3rd June, 1995 - Controlling Authority (Labour Officer) allowed the payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act - The Controlling Authority rejected the review application under Section 151 of CPC - The Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal directed ,the Board to is make the payment of 54,567/- towards the gratuity to the workman Appellant submitted that orders passed by the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority are not in accordance with law and submitted that the period the workman was engaged as a Beldar w.e.f. 26.8.1993 to 3.6.1995 was to be calculated under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and after regularisation of the workman the period from 1995 to 31.12.1998 is to be counted under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Held, that the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 16th November, 2002 cannot be faulted with -The entire period to 1988 is to be accounted for, for the purpose of determining the gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - The workman is entitled to get the gratuity on the basis of last pay drawn by him i.e. 4239/- at the time of superannuation - The order passed by the appellate authority allowing interest w.e.f. 1.2.1999 cannot be interfered in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court - Writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 3300/-. (Paras 3, 19 & 20)
(ii) Words & Phrases - Interpretation of statues - Intention of the legislature - Interpretation by various authorities is as under : Maxwell on the interpretation of Satutes (10 Edn. at P-7)
says thus :-
(i) " .... If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result."
(ii) "It is a rule now firmly established that the intention of the legislature must be found by reading the statute as a whole."
In the same text book (6th Edn. at P-89) the following passage is found :
(iii) "Manifest absurdity or futility, palpable injustice, or absurd inconvenience or anomaly to be avoided." (Para 8)
Rajiv Sharma, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner dated 16th November, 2000.
2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenience) was engaged as daily rated Beldar with effect from 26.8.1993 upto 3rd June, 1995. The workman was thereafter regularized as ‘T’ mate. He retired as "F Mate from the service of the Board on 31.12.1998. He filed an application under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Controlling Authority (Labour Officer). The Controlling Authority vide order dated 20.3.2001 directed the Board to pay the workman a sum of Rs. 34,238/ - within 30 days on the receipt of the notice. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20th March, 2001, the Board had filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of order dated 20th March, 2001 before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority rejected the review application of the Board on 4.7.2001. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Controlling Authority the Board had filed appeal through its Superintending Engineer (OP) Circle. H.P. and Additional Superintending Engineer, Electrical Division, HPSEB, Bilaspur before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority decided the appeal on 16th November, 2002 and had directed the Board to make the payment of Rs. 54,567/- towards the gratuity to the workman.
3. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Board has strenuously argued that the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority are not in accordance with law. Mr. Dogra has elaborated his submission further by submitted that the period the workman was engaged as a Beldar with effect from 26.8.1983 to 3.6.1995 was to be calculated under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and after the regularization of the workman the period from 1995 to 31.12.1998 is to be counted under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
4. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the workman has submitted that the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority dated 16th November, 2002 are in accordance with law.
5. I have heard the parties and perused the record.
6. It will be apt to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Payment I of Gratuity Act, 1972 to appreciate the rival submissions of the parties. I Sections 1(3) (b) and 4 which read as under: "1 (3) It shall apply to— "(a) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company; (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; (c) such other establishments or class of establishments, in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf."
4. Payment of gratuity.—(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered "continuous service" for not less than five years,— (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease: Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement: Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the controlling authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial
