BINNY LTD Vs. COMMR OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the appropriate Government under S. 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short, 'the Act') is the Central Government in the case of the petitioner - Company, which admittedly owns textile mills and other industries in more than one State.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner which is a Public Company has its registered office in Madras and owns a textile mill in the State of Tamil Nadu. It also owns a textile mill in Bangalore (Karnataka State) carrying on operations similar to those carried on in its Madras factory. On an application under S. 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (in short, 'the Act') made by respondent-3, a workman of the petitioner's Bangalore factory, respondent-2 the Controlling Authority and respondent-1, the Appellate Authority appointed by the State Government under the Act, took the view that the appropriate Government in relaltion to the petitioner - Company is the State Government and not the Central Government and, therefore, respondent-2 was competent to entertain the application and adjudicate the claim of respondent-3.

(3.) Is the petitioner - Company an establishment and if so, whether its factory in Bangalore is a branch of that establishment ?. If the Act had made a distinction between an establishment and a factory, how is the word 'establishment' to be interpreted These are the questions that arise for determination in this petition. The Act came into force on 16-9-1972, S.1 (3) of the Act reads: