VALLABHADAS KANJI (P) LTD. Vs. ESMAIL KOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these two petitions are the same and similar orders are under challenge in these petitions. The first respondent in O.P. No. 587 of 1976 as well as the first respondent in O.P. No. 3507 of 1976 moved petitions under the provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Controlling Authority constituted under that Act. This was opposed by the employer, the petitioner herein. After taking evidence and hearing the parties the Controlling Authority passed an order under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter called the Act). That was taken up by the petitioner in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The orders of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Controlling Authority are under challenge in these two petitions.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the Travancore Oil Mills at Alleppey which has a factory registered under the Factories Act engaged in copra crushing, pepper garbling and processing. According to the petitioner copra crushing is seasonal in nature and even during the season the copra crushing unit works only intermittently. The first respondent in O.P. No. 587 of 1976 is a cooper in the copra crushing unit attending to coopering work on such of those days on which there is availability of such work. The petitioner avers that the first respondent was getting only 6 to 7 days work in a month and he was being paid on piece rate basis. The first respondent in the other petition is a tinker who too has work to do only on certain days in a month. It is the petitioner's case that the respondents do not have continuous work so much so they cannot claim gratuity on the plea that they have the minimum service which entitles them to the payment of gratuity. The second plea raised by the petitioner concerns the quantum of gratuity payable. According to the petitioner such quantum has to be determined on the basis of average wages per day which in turn has to be determined by dividing the total wages in a period of 3 months by the total number of days in a period of 3 months. The petitioner's further case is that wages that could be earned for 13 days should be taken as 15 days' wages which is due as gratuity for one year of service. These contentions were not accepted by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. These are the matters raised in these petitions.

(3.) I will now refer to the relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. S.4 provides that --