AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. KANTIBAI HIRABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. H.S Munshaw for petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya for respondent No. 1.

(2.) Petitioner corporation is challenging order passed by controlling authority granting amount of gratuity Rs. 1,02,375. by order dated' November 10, 2008. That order was challenged by workman before appellate authority and appellate authority granted same amount with 10 per cent interest with effect from May 17, 2003 and appellate authority has granted Rs. 1,06,470.00 being amount of gratuity of 26 years by order dated October 5, 2009.

(3.) Sole contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw for petitioner is that service as daily wager as well as break in service has been considered for the purpose of payment of gratuity amount in favour of respondent workman. Controlling authority has considered facts as per pay slip given by petitioner to workman, of May, 2000 where date of joining is November 1, 1977 and in column of pay, it was mentioned permanent job, therefore, it was held that he has completed 26 years and submission made on behalf of establishment that he has completed 16 years service has not been accepted. Contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw for petitioner is that service rendered as daily wager cannot be taken into account and break in service also, where workman was either remaining absent or was not provided work by-employer, such period cannot be taken into account, that should have to be excluded for benefit of gratuity amount but that has not been excluded by controlling authority and controlling authority considered entire period of 26 years considering last wages; one day Rs. 273.00, total amount comes to Rs. 1,02,375.00 and accordingly that amount has been directed to be paid by petitioner to workman.