DIGVIJAY WOOLLEN MILLS LIMITED THE MAHARANA MILLS LIMITED Vs. MAHENDRA PRATAPRAI BUJ H:GOPALDAS LAUHABHAI KAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question arises for consideration in these two appeals relating to the mode of calculating fifteen days wages of a monthly rated employee under Section 4 (2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 4 (2) provides:

(2.) It is not necessary to state the facts in any great detail. In both cases the respondent was a monthly-rated employee and the appellant, a public limited company, was his employer. In Civil Appeal No. 1088 of 1976 (Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills Limited, Appellant v. Shri Mahendra Prataprai Buch, Respondent) the respondent ceased to be an employee on attaining the age of superannuation after completing 19 years of service. The appellant company calculated the amount of gratuity payable to him on the basis that fifteen days' wages was half of the monthly wages last drawn by him. The respondent demanded an additional sum as gratuity on the ground that his monthly wages should be taken as what he got for 26 working days, and his daily wages should be ascertained on that basis and his fifteen days' wages worked out accordingly, not by just taking half of his wages for a month of 80 days or by fixing his daily wages by dividing his monthly wages by 30. The Controlling Authority under the Act, accepted the respondent's contention and his decision was affirmed by the appellate authority. A Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad summarily dismissed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution made by the appellant-company challenging the decision of the authorities under the Act. The learned Judges however gave reasons in support of the order made. The appeal before us is by special leave.

(3.) In Civil Appeal 480 of 1977 (The Maharana Mills Limited, appellant v. Shri Gopal Das Ladhadhai Kakkad, respondent) the respondent resigned his job after a little over 22 years of service. The appellant-company paid him gratuity calculating his daily wages by dividing his monthly wages by 30 and computed fifteen day's wages on that basis. Here also the respondent claimed an additional sum as gratuity and the basis of the claim was the same as in the other appeal. The Controlling Authority accepted the respondent's contention and the appellate authority affirmed his decision following the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in the other case. In this case also the Gujarat High Court summarily rejected the petition made by the appellant company challenging the decision of the authorities under the Act. This appeal however is brought on a certificate granted by the High Court.