CHATHU Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An employee in a Printing Press employed by the 2nd respondent in these appeals has filed these writ appeals. He retired from service on superannuation on 30.8.1986. He was issued with Ext. P1 communication (marked in O.P. No. 1679/1991) that he shall receive terminal benefits includes gratuity. But he was not paid the gratuity. He applied to the Controlling Authority as provided for in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Central Act). The Controlling authority allowed his application by directing the employer to pay an amount of Rs. 15,288/- as Gratuity. The controlling authority computed the gratuity in terms of the Kerala Industrial Employees Payment of Gratuity Act, 1970 (State Act). The employer appealed against the order of the controlling authority. The controlling authority allowed the appeal in part reducing the amount payable towards gratuity as Rs. 9937/- instead of Rs. 15,288/-. The appellate order was challenged both by the employer as well as the employee. Employee was aggrieved because of the reduction of the gratuity amount. The employer was aggrieved as gratuity even to that extent was directed to be paid because the contention of the employer was that the employee was not entitled to gratuity. The appellate authority applied Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Central Act. They filed O.Ps. 1679 of 1991 and 3149 of 1991 respectively. The learned Single Judge held that the establishment owned by the first respondent will not come within the definition of the 'Factory'. Therefore, the employee was not entitled to the gratuity. Accordingly, O.P. No. 3149 of 1991 filed by the employer was allowed and O.P. No. 1679 of 1991 filed by the employee was dismissed. These appeals are filed by the employee against the said judgments.

(2.) Two questions arise in these appeals as to

(3.) As per the State Act, 'Employee' means "any person employed in any factory, plantation, establishment or undertaking to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward. There is no dispute with regard to the salary ceiling of the employee so as to attract exclusion from the purview of the employee. As per S.1(3)(a) of the State Act, the above Act shall apply to "any factory as defined in clause (m) of S.2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act, 63 of 1948)". The Central Act defines 'Employee' as follows: