IREL (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. P. N. RAGHAVA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner, IREL (India) Limited/employer is challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Controlling Authority on 13.06.2018, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Gratuity Act') determining the balance amount of gratuity payable to the 1st respondent herein as Rs.41,459/- which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority under the said Act vide order dated 15.10.2019 (Ext.P8) in an appeal under Section 7(7) of the said Act filed by the petitioner-employer.

(2.) The facts in brief are thus:

(3.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/employer at sufficient length of time. He argued that the order of the Controlling Authority is without any finding about the issue involved and the 1st respondent has not pleaded and proved that he was not an apprentice/trainee. It is further argued that the trainee or learner is in fact an apprentice and therefore, not an employee as defined by Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act. The 1st respondent is therefore not an employee nor he was employed on wages so far as his training period ranging from 16.07.1991 to 15.07.1993 is concerned. Therefore, according to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, the 1st respondent is not entitled for gratuity for this period. There is no finding that this period of training was a camouflage for avoiding payment of gratuity. To buttress this contention, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments: