SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(All) 658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Palok Basu, J.
Nagar Palika - Appellant
Versus
Appellate Authority And Additional Labour Commissioner, And Others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 2914 of 1985
Decided On : 25-02-1988

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prem Chandra
For the Respondent: M. Islam and U.N. Sharma

The Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to employees of Nagar Palika, and the definition of 'employee' in the Act should be interpreted broadly to provide social security to employees.

Headnote:

PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT - APPLICABILITY TO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES - SECTION 2(II)(E), 2(II)(F), 1(3) - DEFINITION OF 'EMPLOYEE', 'EMPLOYER', AND APPLICABILITY TO ESTABLISHMENTS WITH 10 OR MORE EMPLOYEES - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

Smt. Salma Khatoon, claiming to be the widow of Sri Majid Ali Khan, an employee of Nagar Palika, Moradabad, applied for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act after his death. The Nagar Palika contested the claim, leading to an order by the Controlling Authority directing payment of gratuity to Smt. Salma Khatoon.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act are applicable to employees of Nagar Palika, as the definition of 'employee' in Section 2(ii)(e) is broad and includes any person employed on wages not exceeding Rs. 1,600 per month in various establishments, including local authorities. The court also held that the Nagar Palika is an 'establishment' under Section 2(ii)(f) as it is a public institution carrying out statutory duties.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act are applicable to employees of Nagar Palika? 2. Whether there was sufficient proof of Smt. Salma Khatoon being the widow of the deceased employee.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of 'employee' in Section 2(ii)(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act broadly to include employees of Nagar Palika, considering the beneficial nature of the legislation and the need for social security for employees. 2. The court distinguished the case of Smt. Asha Devi Jauhari Vs. Smt. Sharda Devi and Others, relied upon by the Petitioner, as the facts in that case involved a dispute between two sets of heirs, requiring settlement by a civil court, whereas in the present case, there was no such dispute.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by Nagar Palika, Moradabad, challenging the order of the Controlling Authority directing payment of gratuity to Smt. Salma Khatoon.

JUDGMENT :

Palok Basu, J.

One Sri Majid Ali Kban was an employee in the Nagar Palika, Moradabad, who died on 7th January, 1976. Smt. Salma Khatoon claiming herself to be the widow of the said employee laid a claim for gratuity amount before the Nagar i Palika. For some reason or other there was no satisfactory action on the said application. Consequently Smt. Salma Khatoon made an application u/s 9 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, before the Controlling Authority. The Nagar Palika contested the claim whereupon ultimately the controlling Authority by an order dated 9th July, 1982, directed that a total sum of Rs. 10264.80 shall be paid to Smt. Salma Khatoon.

2. Aggrieved by the said order the Nagar Palika, Moradabad, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. I have heard Sri Prem Chandra Srivastava on behalf of the Nagar Palika and Sri Uraesh Narain Sharma representing Smt. Salma Khatoon. Sri Srivastava has argued the following two points in support of his writ petition:

(1) The provisions of the Act are not applicable in case of employee of Nagar Palika.

(2) There was no proof of the fact that Smt. Salma Khatoon was the widow of the ex-employee, on the basis of which it has been canvassed that the impugned order is illegal and liable to be quashed.

4. On the other band Sri Sharma contended that the definition of the word 'employee' is wide enough to include ah employee of Nagar Palika also and benefits under the said Act must ensure to the nominees or heirs of the concerned employee. He has mainly relied upon the provisions of the Act.

5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I am of opinion that so far as the first point is concerned it has to be rejected. It is in the fitness of things that a beneficial provision should be broadly - interpreted. In a welfare State like ours such laws have been enacted only to extend more social security to those who retire or those who suddenly lose their bread-earner.

6. It may be relevant to quote the definition here which is to be found in Section 2(ii)(e):

"Employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, not exceeding one thousand and six hundred rupees per mensem, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the term's of such employment are express or implied, and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by rules providing for payment of gratuity

7. It may be relevant again to make a reference to the definition of "employer" to be found in Clause (f) of Section 2(ii) of the Act as under:

"Employer" means in relation to any establishment

(i) belonging to, or under the control of, the Central Government or a State Government, a person or authority appointed by the appropriate Government for the supervision and control of employees, or where no person or authority has been so appointed, the head of the Ministry or the Department concerned".

(ii) belonging to, or under the control of, any local authority, the person appointed by such authority for the supervision and control of employees or where no person has been so appointed, the Chief Executive Officer of the local authority.

8. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 lays down that the provisions of the Act are to apply to every establishment in which 10 or more persons are employed

9. The argument sought to be advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Municipal Board cannot be described as an 'establishment' because the word 'establishment' connotes some business transaction or at least it may include a public institution. Such a definition of the word 'establishment' is to be found in Black's Legal Dictiona





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top