The legal point established is the obligation of an establishment to pay gratuity to its employees based on the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the legal requirements for running a bus service.

1. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same person. He is the Proprietor of Sri Rajarajeswari Bus Service at Vridhachalam. The petitioner challenges the order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (R1) made in P.G.Nos.49 and 48 of 2007 dated 25.01.2008 respectively.

2. Both the writ petitions were admitted on 19.03.2008. Pending the writ petitions, an interim injunction was granted restraining the first and second respondents from permitting the contesting respondents from withdrawing any portion of the amount lying in deposit with the second respondent Controlling Authority.

3. The case of the petitioner was that he was a transport operator owning two buses plying in and around Vridhachalam. His father late Venkatasubramaniam Chettiar was also a bus operator. Since Vridhachalam is known for the Goddess Rajeswari, he and his father named after the transport as Sri Rajarajeswari Bus Service. His brothers were also carrying on the Motor Transport business and were having the same name. But they registered the business separately under the Motor Transport Workers Act.

4. In W.P.No.6785 of 2008, the contesting third respondent filed gratuity application in P.G.No.224 of 2002 against the 4th respondent as well as against the petitioner’s father Venkatasubramaniam Chettiar. He claimed gratuity on the basis of his continuous employment with the 4th respondent from 1969 to 1988 and thereafter, with Venkatasubramaniam Chettiar from 1988 to 1996, thereby rendered total service of 25 years. The petitioner’s father Venkatasubramaniam Chettiar died on 25.01.2004. The petitioner and other legal heirs numbering 6 were brought on record as legal heirs. On notice from the Controlling Authority, the petitioner entered appearance as the legal heir of his father and contested the proceedings. He stated that he has nothing to do with the business carried on by his late father as well as by the third respondent. In his evidence, the third respondent admitted that he had filed the case only against 4th respondent and Venkatasubramaniam Chettiar and he was employed only with the 4th respondent from 1969 to 1988 and thereafter with Venkatasubramaniam Chettiar from 1988 to 1996. The petitioner represented the case only as the legal heir and not as an Employer.

5. The Controlling Authority (R2) by an order dated 21.03.2006 found that the third respondent was only employed with Late Venkatasubramaniam Chettiar as well as the 4th respondent, in their transport service Sri Rajarajeswari Bus company. But inspite of the said finding, the second respondent computed a sum of Rs.25,139/- as payable to the third respondent together with interest at the rate of 10% from the date of his retirement. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent Appellate Authority in P.G.A.No.49 of 2007. The first respondent by an order dated 25.01.2008 dismissed the appeal and directed the payment of amount. It is against that order W.P.No.6785 of 2008 came to be filed.

6. In W.P.No.6786 of 2008, the case of the petitioner was that in P.G.No.225 of 2002, the petitioner was made as a legal representative of late Venkatasubramaniam Chettiar and the contesting third respondent claimed gratuity for rendering 24 years of service amounting to Rs.55,742/-. The petitioner contested his claim and stated that he had employed only 5 persons. The petitioner filed the permits for the two buses, which were marked as Exs.M1 and M2 to show that there were two buses owned by him, the attendance registers Exs.M3 and M4 to show that there are only 5 employees and the name of the third respondent found in Ex.M4. He also filed Exs.M5 and M6, attendance register and salary register. The petitioner contended that he had nothing to do with the father’s business. Notwithstanding the same, the Controlling Authority found the petitioner was liable to pay the amount and hence by an order dated 21.03.2006, dire