State of Karnataka vs Gowramma

In this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the validity of the order at Annexure-C dated 28.7.2012, whereby the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - (respondent No. 2), (for short ''the Act'') has directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 32,365/- towards gratuity and interest in a sum of Rs. 10,144/- to the 1st respondent payable to her husband late Shivanna.

The 1st respondent filed an application before the 2nd respondent seeking payment of gratuity u/s 4 of the Act on account of the death of her husband. It is her contention that her husband Shivanna was an employee at Taluk Social Welfare Office, Nanjangud, Mysore District and that he had worked continuously for 17 years. He died on 11.5.2009.

The petitioners have filed statement of objections before the 2nd respondent raising a plea relating to maintainability of the claim petition. According to them, Shivanna was working in the establishment of the 2nd respondent i.e., Social Welfare Department and having regard to the definition of the ''employee'' u/s 2(e) of the Act, the petition was not maintainable.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the contention as to the maintainability of the claim petition has not been considered though noted in the course of the order. Section 2(e) defines "Employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oil field, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act, applies, 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 any rules providing for payment of gratuity.

The contention of the petitioners is that service conditions of the deceased husband of the 1st respondent are governed by KCSR, as he was employed in the Social Welfare Department. Therefore, the application was not maintainable. Perusal of the impugned order shows that this contention has not been considered by the 2nd respondent. It is a jurisdictional issue, which ought to have been decided by the 2nd respondent. I am of the view that the 2nd respondent has to reconsider the matter.

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed in part. The order at Annexure-C dated 28.7.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law after due notice to all the parties. All contentions are kept open. No costs.