Back
2019 Supreme(All) 245
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
General Manager The Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Appellate Authority/ Deputy Labour Commissioner Payment of Gratuity and Others - Respondent
Writ C No. 4031 of 2019
Decided on : 07-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Vrindavan Mishra, Adv., Sudhanshu Narain, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee, even in a seasonal establishment, is entitled to gratuity based on 15 days' wages per year if they have worked for 240 days in a year, as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Headnote:
Gratuity Act - Seasonal Employment - The court upheld the decision of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, ruling that the employee, despite being employed in a seasonal establishment, was entitled to gratuity based on 15 days' wages per year as he had worked for 240 days in a year, as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent initiated claim proceedings for gratuity, claiming to have worked for 240 days in a year during a specific period. The petitioner contended that the respondent had worked only as a seasonal employee and was entitled to gratuity based on 7 days' wages per year.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority.
Issues: The main issue was the calculation of gratuity for a seasonal employee who had worked for 240 days in a year.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 4(2) and Section 2-A(2)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and held that if an employee has worked in an establishment, even if it is a seasonal establishment, for a year meaning 240 days, the employee would be entitled to gratuity calculating the wages of 15 days in a year.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the decision of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority was upheld.
B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Vrindavan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2.
2. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 25.4.2016 passed by the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as the appellate order dated 13.08.2018.
3. The respondent no. 3 initiated claim proceedings being PGA Case no. 40 of 2015 before the Controlling Authority claiming gratuity for the period from 01.03.1984 to 2.9.1996 on the ground that during this period he had worked for 240 days in a year and therefore, he was entitled to be paid gratuity calculating the wages of 15 days in a year. The stand of the petitioner was that during the period from 01.03.1984 to 02.09.1996 the respondent no. 3 had worked only as a seasonal employee and therefore, in view of the second proviso to Section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') he was entitled to gratuity calculating the wages of 7 days in a year.
4. The contention of the petitioner establishment has been rejected by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority which have recorded a finding that the respondent no. 3 had worked for 240 days in a year during the period from 01.03.1984 to 02.09.1996.
5. Section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 reads as under :
"4(2). For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by employee concerned:
Provided that in the case of a piece-rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment, and, for this purpose, the wages paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account :
Provided further that in the case of an employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is not so employed throughout the year, the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days' wages for each season."
6. The fact that the respondent no. 3 had worked for 240 days in a year during the period from 01.03.1984 to 02.09.1996 has not been disputed by the petitioner establishment. Section 2-A(2)(ii) of the Act contemplates a year to mean 240 days.
7. Section 2-A(2)(ii) of the Act reads as under :
"2-A(2)(ii) - two hundred and forty days, in any other case;"
8. Therefore, in my opinion, the import of second proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act would be that if the employee has worked in an establishment, even if it is a seasonal establishment, for a year meaning thereby 240 days the proviso would not apply and the employee would be entitled to gratuity calculating the wages of 15 days in a year as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act.
9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders.
10. The writ petition lacks merit and accordingly stands dismissed.
