AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Badi
The petitioner has called in question the order of the Controlling Authority dated 28.4.2009 produced at Annexure-B and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 14.6.2010 produced at Annexure-C passed under Payment of Gratuity Act. Both the authorities concurrently have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner, while he was working as a badli, has not proved that he has worked for 240 days in a year and accordingly, his services as a badli was not considered.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had worked as a badli. The petitioner has stated that he has worked for 240 days in a year, however, no record, to the contrary, has been produced by the Corporation to prove that the petitioner has worked less than 240 days.
this Court, in a decision reported in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bangalore Region II and Others, in the matter of ''BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ORS. ''has held that, if there is any break or discontinue of services, the Corporation should produce the records. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment reads as under:
It is true that, in many cases, it is found that, even before the Corporation secures copy of the order from the Appellate Authority, the Controlling Authority has disbursed the amount, it would be difficult in case the Corporation succeeds in the matter. In view of the above, the Controlling Authority must ensure that the Corporation is served with copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority and reasonable time is given to the Corporation and without waiting for reasonable time, if the amount is disbursed, the interest of the Corporation / Management will be vitally affected. I am of the opinion that, the Controlling Authority to take into consideration the supply of copy of the order of Appellate Authority and after giving reasonable time to party, it should take step to disburse the amount, thereby protecting the legal right of the Corporation/Management to challenge the order. Copy of this order be supplied to the Government Advocate to communicate the same to the Authority.
The said judgment of this Court was confirmed in WA No. 1503/2009 on 18.11.2009. In view of the same, the burden is on the Corporation and Corporation has not proved it. Hence, both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Respondent is directed to determine the gratuity payable to the petitioner within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.