HMT WATCHES LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Management has called in question the order of the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos.3 to 18 had filed the claim petition before the Controlling authority interalia claiming payment of difference of gratuity for the period for which they worked as trainee. However, the Competitive Authority under the Act, by its order dated 28.07.2008 has rejected the said applications on the ground of delay. As against the said order, the respondents 3 to 18 filed an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act. The said appeal were contested both on the ground of delay as well as on the ground of entitlement of the respondent Nos.3 to 18 for difference of gratuity amount for the period for which they had worked as trainee by contending that the training period will not be counted as a service rendered for the purpose of payment of gratuity and the petitioners will not be entitled for the gratuity for the said period.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Management contended that, training period or apprenticeship period will not be counted for the purpose granting the gratuity. He submitted that the respondents 3 to 18 have not rendered the service for the said period. He also contended that, in law the claim petition has to be filed within 90 days from the date of cause of action. Admittedly, the claim petitions are filed at a belated stage, as such claim petitions itself were not maintainable in law.