The employer's failure to prove the internal business arrangement among family members can result in the employer being held responsible for employee entitlements.

1. The petitioner is a widow of late A.C.Kannan, who was employed with the first respondent Sri Balavainayagar Bus Service, Vellore. She has filed the writ petition, seeking to set aside the order of the third respondent Appellate Authority made in

2. The petitioner's husband was working as Conductor in the first respondent's transport service. He joined the services on 22.09.1945 and was terminated from service on 03.12.1995. He had put in 50 years of service. His last drawn wages was calculated as Rs.1669/-, which is the minimum wage, though he was paid Rs.1,500/-. He sent a notice to the first respondent and thereafter lodged a gratuity claim before the second respondent Controlling Authority. The said claim was taken on file as P.G.No.3 of 2003 and notice was issued to the first respondent. When the main application was taken up for hearing, the petitioner's husband died on 29.09.2002. Hence, she took out an application to bring her on record as the legal representative of her deceased husband.

3. Before the second respondent, 4 documents were filed on the side of the petitioner, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P4. On the side of the first respondent Management, 7 documents were filed and marked as Exs.R1 to R7.

4. The Controlling Authority by his order dated 01.03.2004 held that the petitioner was eligible to get gratuity only for 40 years of service. On that basis, he computed the gratuity by calculating his drawn drawn pay as Rs.2,500/- and fixed the gratuity at Rs.57,692/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent Management filed an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The said appeal was taken on file as P.G.A.No.34 of 2004. The first respondent deposited the entire amount computed by the Controlling Authority.

5. On notice from the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed a counter statement. The Appellate Authority by his order dated 14.12.2004 allowed the appeal. The Appellate Authority held that the letter dated 30.12.1991 (Ex.R1) sent by petitioner's husband to the Management would not imply employer employee relationship between her husband and the first respondent as in the said letter, he only pleaded for an help in consultation with the first respondent's brother and mother. Ex.P3 will show that the bus was operated by 3 different entities namely, R1, his brother and mother. Therefore, the petitioner's husband having worked in the buses run by the first respondent, his mother and brothers were proved by documents. Therefore, the third respondent held that order of the Controlling Authority was not valid.

6. In the writ petition, notice was ordered initially. Subsequently, it was admitted on 27.10.2010.

7. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 20.10.2010. Their contention was that when the bus service is run in the general name of Sri Bala Vinayagar Bus service, each of the members of the family having separate permit for separate bus will automatically become a separate entity. In so far as the first respondent is concerned, it is only single bus transport service which is initially owned by the father of the deponent to the counter affidavit. But the fact that they have internal division will not deny the workers from receiving gratuity from any one of the members of the family. It is not the case of the first respondent that he had separately registered himself under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. No such pleadings were also made to that effect. The claim that during the year 1945 to 1985 that he could have been employed only with the first respondent cannot be believed. Since records were produced to show ownership of the buses by different persons, directing the first respondent to bear the entire burden cannot be accepted.

8. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the stand taken by the first respondent. On the other hand, when the petitioner sent notice in Form I, no reply was sent by the first respondent. Even before the Control