The Tiruchengode Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society vs Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (Joint Commissioner of Labour) Coimbatore and Others

Honourable Mr. Justice R. Sudhakar

The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent appellate authority dated 8.2.2002 passed under the payment of Gratuity Act. The

respondents 3, 4, and 5 claiming to be working under the petitioner as Khalasis filed applications before the Controlling Authority, the second

respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The second respondent rejected the stand of the petitioner herein and allowed the applications

based on evidence. The petitioner filed an appeal to the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act inter alia contending that the

respondents 3,4 and 5 are employed by a contract labour and therefore there is no liability for payment of gratuity and that legal plea was rejected

by the appellate authority as well. Aggrieved thereby the writ petition has been filed. At the time of admission, the following interim order was

passed by K.P. Sivasubramanian, J.

These matters are posted today for being mentioned.

In the earlier order, the operative portion is as follows:

The petitioner is entitled to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the petitioner. The remaining balance of 50% shall be deposited in any

nationalised bank and the petitioner will be entitled to withdraw only the accrued interest periodically.

There is a mistake in mentioning the status of the parties. The above order shall be modified as follows:

The petitioners/employees are entitled to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the Management. The remaining balance of 50% shall be

deposited in any nationalised Bank and the workers will be entitled to withdraw the accrued interest periodically.

Today when the matter is taken up for orders, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3, 4, and 5 produced the copy of the order

passed by His Lordship P.Sathasivam,J. (as he then was) in W.P.No.15976 of 1993 dated 23.6.2000 dealing with the very same issue. In that

case, the wife of one Muthu Gounder filed an application for payment of gratuity before the controlling authority, wherein the very same petitioner

society was directed to pay the gratuity amount. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the appellate authority who

dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition which came to be disposed of holding as follows:

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for first respondent, the above definition does not exclude contract employees from the purview of

the Act. A reading of the definition shows that though apprentice has been specifically excluded from the definition, employing the contract

workmen or Khalasi were not mentioned in the said Section. In the absence of any specific exclusion, it is presumed that even contract worker or

khalasi are entitled to the benefits under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Even on merits, it is seen from the order of the Controlling Authority, the said

Muthu Gounder was employed as Khalasi for nearly 20 years. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Controlling Authority has

concluded thus... "":

In the present case also the authorities have concluded that the employees have worked for more than 240 days and the controlling authority has

come to the conclusion that the respondents 3,4 and 5 were in continuous employment for the requisite period of time. On this factual finding of the

authorities, this Court is not inclined to take a different view as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. On the legal plea also, as has

been considered in the decision referred to above which clearly holds that similarly placed Khalasis are entitled to the benefit of Payment of gratuity

under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (At 39/72), in the present case also, since the order of the controlling authority as confirmed by the

appellate authority against the very same petitioner is in accordance with the provisions of the Act, I am of the view that the writ petition filed

challenging the order of the appellate authority is without any factual and legal basis. Since the authorities have clearly come to the conclusion that

the respondents 3,4 and 5 are employees of the petitioner Society and rendered continuous service to become eligible for gratuity under the

Payment of Gratuity Act, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent.

Finding no infirmity or irregularity in the orders under challenge, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. It is needless to say that the amount

remaining in the deposit made by the petitioner can be withdrawn by the respondents 3,4 and 5 as per their entitlement.