Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15727
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
THE CHAIRMAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 17668/2024
ADV RAJESH CHAKYAT, ADV SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL, SMT.ANIMA M.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
An employee's continuous service exceeding five years qualifies for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, regardless of temporary employment status.
Headnote:
Gratuity - Employment Dispute - [Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Sections 4, 7] - The court upheld the authority's decision granting gratuity, interpreting the employee's tenure as qualifying under the Act, emphasizing the importance of continuous service and the validity of the experience certificate provided.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Kindergarten institution chairman, challenged an order granting gratuity to a former employee, claiming her service was less than five years and thus ineligible under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employee had worked for nearly six years, supported by an unchallenged experience certificate, and established that she met the eligibility criteria for gratuity under the Act.
Issues: Whether the employee was entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act given her period of service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the employee's continuous service exceeded five years, making her eligible for gratuity despite the petitioner's claims to the contrary.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the gratuity order.
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2024 The petitioner is Chairman of a Kinder Garden Institution. The writ petition has been filed aggrieved by order dated 12.12.2023 in G.C.No.32/2023 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode.
2.The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent was an employee of the petitioner-Institution. She filed application for payment of gratuity before the 2nd respondent-Deputy Labour Commissioner. The 2nd respondent passed Ext.P7 order holding that the 3rd respondent is entitled to get 36,173/- as gratuity and directed to pay the balance₹ amount deducting the amount already paid with 10% interest.
3.It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has been working as a Teacher on a temporary basis only for the period from 01.06.2013 to 29.02.2014. The permanent service of the petitioner commenced only on 01.06.2014 and continued till 30.04.2019. The said service is less than five years and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to payment of any gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 . The 2nd respondent therefore committed a grave error in ordering gratuity of 36,173/- in favour of the₹ 3 rd respondent.
4.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel representing the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2.
5.It is evident from Ext.P7 order passed by the Controller of Payment Gratuity that the proceedings were conducted with notice to the petitioner-employer as well. The petitioner-employer has filed objection to the gratuity application and was examined RW1, who was Administrative Assistant of the Establishment, in the proceedings.
6.The Gratuity Authority found that the 3rd respondent had produced Ext.A1 Experience Certificate issued by the Headmistress of the Institution, where the Headmistress had stated that the 3rd respondent has worked in the Institution from 01.06.2013 to 30.04.2019. The said document is not challenged or questioned from any quarters.
Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner has worked for about six years in the Institution, which will make the petitioner eligible for payment of gratuity. The petitioner has also failed to establish that in any year the 3rd respondent has worked for less than 240 days.
In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P7 order. The writ petition is without any merit and it is hence dismissed.
