A GOPINATHAN NAIR Vs. N RADHA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was an employee under the first respondent. He claims to have left the employment on 19-9-1981, after putting in 13 years of service. By Ext. P1 application dated 29th May, 1982 the petitioner claimed gratuity for the services rendered by him to the first respondent. The said application was admittedly filed beyond the period prescribed by the Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973. The petitioner did not file any application to condone the delay along with Ext. P1. On 1st August, 1984, he put in Ext. P3(a) application supported by Ext. P3 affidavit praying for condoning the delay occasioned in filing Ext. P1. The first respondent, by Ext. P2 objection dated 20-10-1982 raised a contention that the petitioner is not entitled to any gratuity because he had voluntarily abandoned his service from August, 1981, for joining Government Service.

(2.) The 2nd respondent, by Ext. P4 order directed the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1,229,60/- towards the gratuity due to the petitioner. On appeal by the first respondent, the appellate authority, the 3rd respondent reversed the same by Ext. P5 order. Hence this Original Petition.

(3.) The petitioner would contend that he resigned from the service of the first respondent on 19-9-1981 and so he is entitled to gratuity since he had put in 13 years of service. In Ext. P2 the first respondent had taken a contention that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned his service in August, 1981, and entered Government service without even informing the matter to the employer. It is admitted by the petitioner that he has not got a copy of the resignation letter. He had not called upon by the first respondent to produce the resignation letter alleged to have been sent by him. When the first respondent had specifically averred in the counter that the petitioner took up employment in Government Service in August, 1981, the petitioner at least ought to have given the date of his joining the Government Service. As per S.4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, an employee who abandoned the post is not entitled to any gratuity. The employee claiming gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act should establish that his case falls in one of the categories enumerated in clause (1) of S.4. Only on such proof he can maintain a petition under the Act. In the instant case, as there is no evidence regarding the resignation, the appellate authority had come to the conclusion that there was no termination of the service on any of the grounds mentioned in S.4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said finding.