BOPALASWAMY Vs. MGMT OF USHA MARTIN INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions involved a common point of law and have therefore been heard together and have been disposed of through a common order. The brief facts that have given rise to the dispute are that the two petitioners were office-bearers of the Usha Martin industries union. The first petitioner has passed away since the filing of the petition but that does not make much difference because the issue centres around the question as to whether the respondent-company was justified in passing an order for the withholding of the payment of the gratuity payable to the two petitioners. I am confining this order strictly to the short question as to whether the withholding or non-payment of the gratuity was justified within the framework of the Payment of gratuity Act, 1972, and it is made clear that the observations made in this order shall not have any bearing in other proceedings. The reason for this is because I find from the record that the company had passed an order dismissing the two petitioners from service and the withholding of the gratuity was an incidental and separate order and in the event that any proceedings may be ending in relation to the order of dismissal, it is made clear that this order will have no bearing on those proceedings.

(2.) IT was alleged that on March 7, 1997 the first petitioner reported for duty in the night shift even though he did not belong to that shift and when he was told that he could not be allowed to work he is alleged to have not only got into an argument with the company's officers but furthermore, it is alleged that the two petitioners had succeeded in getting all the remaining employees to leave their work stations and resort to what may be termed as a strike of sorts. The company ultimately charge sheeted the two employees and took disciplinary proceedings against them but we are here concerned with the other branch of action that was taken under the Payment of gratuity Act whereby the company passed an order after issuing requisite show-cause notice to the employees that their gratuity was liable to be withheld by virtue of the provisions of section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority and Assistant labour Commissioner under the Payment of gratuity Act, 1972, by order dated November 15, 1999, upheld the claim to gratuity of the petitioners and quantified the amount in question which the company ultimately deposited with the authority. Being aggrieved by the decision however, the company filed an appeal and the appellate authority upheld the company's contention that the provisions of section 4 (6) would apply to the present case and therefore set aside the earlier order and it is against the order of the appellate authority, dated April 28, 2000, that the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) THIS case effectively involves a pure point of law and the petitioner's learned advocate has relied on the following three decisions in support of his contention that the provisions of Section 4 (b) would be inapplicable to the record of the present case: (1) 1987 (l) LLN 308. (2) 1992 LIC 1335 (Brundaban Sahu v. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.)