MONITRON SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MUKUNDLAL KHUSHALCHAND DHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Rule. Mr.Joshi waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) . By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act passed in Application No.136 of 1996 as well as order of the Appellate Authority under the Act. The said orders are annexed at Annexure `D' with the present petition. The respondent herein had preferred an application, being Application No.136 of 1996, before the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for getting the benefit of gratuity after his retirement from service. Before the Authority, it was the case of the present petitioner that the concerned employee, after completing 58 years of age on 1.4.1984, was continued as a Director of the Company and he had voluntarily retired on 30th June, 1996 and since he was a Director of the Company, he was not entitled to any gratuity as he himself was a part and parcel of the Management. Before the Authority, the Management had shown its willingness to pay the amount of gratuity from 1.4.1976 to 1.4.1984 as observed by the Authority in its order. However, according to the respondent, he was appointed from 1.4.1976 as a Branch Manager and, thereafter, he was serving as a General Manager in the Company since 1983. It was his say that he was never appointed as Managing Director of the Company, but in October, 1993, he was given promotion as a Director. He has clearly stated that from 1.4.1976 till February, 1996, one Mr.J.D. Nagarwala was the Managing Director of the Company. On the aforesaid basis, ultimately, order for payment of gratuity was made by the Controlling Authority and the said order was also confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) . At the time of the hearing of this petition, Ms.Pahwa for the petitioner argued that the respondent was not a `workman' and he was an employer as such because he was a Director of the Company and, therefore, according to her, the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of payment of gratuity as gratuity is to be paid to the employee and not to the employer. However, she fairly submitted that the respondent was never appointed as Managing Director of the Petitioner. She has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in J.K. Industries Ltd. and others v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers and others, (1996) 6 SCC 665, which is in connection with the Factories Act.