THRESSIAMMA Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are employees working under the third respondent company. The company is engaged in the business of proceeding fruits and vegetables. The petitioners retired from service after 29 and 31 years respectively. At the time of retirement, they were paid gratuity at the rate of 7 days' wages for every completed year of service. The petitioners filed application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act seeking balance of the gratuity payable at the rate of 15 days' wages per completed year of service. The third respondent took the contention that the factory of the third respondent is a seasonal establishment and therefore the rate of gratuity payable is only 7 days' wages per completed year of service. This argument found favour with the Controlling Authority who calculated the gratuity at the rate of 7 days' per completed year of service but found that the gratuity paid to petitioners was short by Rs. 2416/- and Rs. 268/- respectively and directed the third respondent to pay that amount. The order of the Controlling Authority is Ext.P1. The petitioners herein filed appeals before the appellate authority, who by Ext.P2 common order, dismissed the appeals holding that the third respondent establishment is a seasonal establishment. Exts.P1 and P2 are under challenge in this original petition.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that the third respondent factory is not a seasonal factory and it words through out the year and therefore, they are entitled to 15 days' wages per completed year of service, as gratuity. On the other hand, the counsel for the third respondent would submit that the third respondent establishment is a seasonal establishment and therefore, only 7 days' wages per completed year of service is payable as gratuity to the petitioners. He would also submit that the third respondent has been paying this gratuity at the rate of seven days' wages per year from 1947 onwards which is the year in which factory started functioning. He would further submit that the petitioners themselves, in their evidence, have categorically admitted that the third respondent's establishment is a seasonal establishment.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail.