IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to determine employee benefits claims, emphasizing the importance of service records in establishing employment status.

ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)

Prayer:- This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated, 01.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.7925 of 2020, allowing the said Writ Petition.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated, 01.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.7925 of 2020, allowing the said Writ Petition.

2. The Appellant herein, who had joined the services of the Respondent Society as an Appraiser on 19.10.1991, had retired from the services of the Respondent Society on 31.10.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation.

According to the Petitioner, his last drawn salary was Rs.11,186/- at the time of attaining superannuation.

2.1 Since his retirement benefits were not settled to him within a period of thirty days as contemplated under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and his representations in this regard had also ended in vain, he had filed a computation petition in CP.No.90 of 2016 before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of his retirement benefits. Through an order dated 03.09.2018 of the Labour Court, his retirement benefits were computed to the tune of Rs.4,31,182/- with interest.

2.2 When the said order of the Labour Court was challenged by the Respondent Society before the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.7925 of 2020, the said Writ Petition came to be allowed on 01.02.2024, predominantly on the ground that the Petitioner is not a permanent Employee and by further holding that since the determination of his permanent status requires adjudication, it cannot be done in a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. With such observations, the order of the Labour Court was set aside. Challenging the order of the learned Single, the present Writ Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ Employee.

3. The learned counsel for the Appellant/ Employee would submit that the Appellant had produced all the relevant documents before the Labour Court to substantiate that he was a permanent employee and that all such records, including the service records, medical certificate and the order of retirement would substantiate that he was a permanent Employee and hence, the learned Single Judge of this Court was not correct in holding otherwise.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent Society would submit that the Appellant was only a temporary Employee and not a regular Employee and that since he has not contributed to the Provident Fund, he was not eligible for disbursement of the provident fund dues. However, on the written instructions from the Management of the Respondent Society, he would submit that the Society is ready to pay the gratuity and leave salary, as per the Special Bye-laws of the Respondent Society.

5. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions and also perused the materials placed on record.

6. Apart from the only reason that the permanent status of the Appellant herein requires adjudication, in the impugned order, no other reason has been assigned by the learned Single Judge for allowing the Writ Petition.

7. Insofar as the permanent status of the Appellant is concerned, the Appellant had marked his service record, medical certificate, the retirement order issued by the President of the Respondent Society and the legal notice as Ex.W1 to W4 before the Labour Court. From the service records, Ex.W1, it is seen that the services of the Appellant were regularised through a resolution of the Board, dated 19.05.2001 with effect from 01.04.2001 onwards. This service record, Ex.W1 is not disputed by the Respondent Society.

8. Likewise, the order of retirement dated 31.10.2016, Ex.W3 issued by the President of the Respondent Society ratifies that the Appellant had retired from the services with effect from 31.10.2016. However, in this document, a reference has been made to the status of the Appe