DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY Vs. M MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, being the Southern Railway, is aggrieved by Exhibit P4 order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as affirmed in Exhibit P8 by the Appellate Authority under the enactment. The respondent's claim with respect to enhanced gratuity was allowed by the authority.

(2.) The respondent's claim was with respect to gratuity for the entire period he spent in the Railway service, from 1972 to 2009. The Railways resisted the prayer on the ground that the respondent had been a casual worker, prior to 01.01.1981 and he was granted a temporary status, in which he continued till 1983 when he was absorbed into regular service of the Railways. The respondent is said to have continued in the service of the Railways till 2009 when he attained superannuation. Gratuity was paid to him in accordance with the rules regulating the same, issued by the Railways, coming to an amount of Rs. 2,04,000/-. Admittedly the said gratuity was for the entire period of regular service between 1983 and 2009; and reckoning one-half entitlement between 01.01.1981 and 1983, i.e., between the period of achieving the temporary status and being absorbed into regular service. The respondent claimed that he has to be granted the entire gratuity right from 1972 till 2009 when he continued in the service of the Railways as an employee as per the benefits available under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

(3.) The Railways resisted the claim on the ground that the casual work claimed by the petitioner between 1972 and 1981 was not established. It was also contended by the Railways that, on absorption into regular service from the category of a temporary status worker, every such temporary workmen have to exercise an option. The first option is to the effect that the entire gratuity applicable as on the date of absorption would be paid to the temporary worker, reckoning his claim as on the date of absorption into regular status. The other option was that on agreeing to one-half entitlement to gratuity for the period continued as a temporary status worker, the worker would be paid gratuity at the time of his superannuation from service reckoning only one-half the temporary status service for payment of gratuity. The respondent was considered under the latter, since he has not exercised an option, is the contention.