G.KRISHNAKUMAR Vs. R.MANOHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent was an employee in the Peroorkada Factory of M/s HLL Life Care Limited which is a public sector undertaking. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent joined service on 1/1/1983 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/10/2015 after rendering 32 years and 10 months of service. Upon retirement, the 1st respondent was paid Rs.8,22,888.00 as gratuity for the aforesaid period of service. The 1st respondent subsequently filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ("Gratuity Act" for short), the 2nd respondent, under Sec. 7(4) (b) read with Rule 10(1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 stating that his date of appointment in HLL was 26/12/1978 and that he had been paid gratuity ignoring the casual service rendered by him from 26/12/1978 to 31/12/1982. The 1st respondent made his claim on the basis of Ext.P1 settlement dtd. 26/12/1978 entered into between HLL and the trade unions which provided that casual labourers will be engaged from the list appended thereto on the basis of availability of work. The petitioner resisted the application stating that there were no records available regarding the service rendered by the 1st respondent during the period from 26/12/1978 to 31/12/1982 and that the 1st respondent had not put in continuous service of 240 days a year during his alleged casual service and that the onus to prove that he had put in the requisite work during the alleged period was on the 1st respondent. The petitioner also contended that Ext. P1 settlement only provided for the engagement of casual workers subject to the availability of work.

(2.) Relying on Ext.P1 settlement dtd. 26/12/1978, the Controlling Authority found that the 1st respondent was in service as on the said day and passed Ext. P2 order holding that the 1st respondent is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.99,744.00 as gratuity for the period from 26/12/1978 to 31/12/1982. The Controlling Authority also found that two other casual employees had been given gratuity for the casual service rendered by them and denial of gratuity to the 1st respondent for his casual service would amount to gross discrimination.

(3.) The petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal against Ext.P2 before the Appellate Authority under the Gratuity Act, the 3rd respondent. The Appellate Authority, by Ext. P4 order, upheld Ext.P2 reiterating the findings of the Controlling Authority.