R M ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. KHUSHALBHAI MANILAL CHAVDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Ms. Vijayalakshmi, learned Counsel, waives service for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jayaswal, learned AGP, waives service for respondents No. 2 and 3. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant raised the first contention that the date of retirement of respondent No. 1 could not be treated as 15.11.2000 since the Labour Court has not ordered for reinstatement but has ordered for payment of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. It was submitted that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is already paid as lump sum compensation and, therefore, there was no question of calculating the amount of gratuity.

(3.) In our view, the said contention deserves to be rejected on the face of it inasmuch as payment of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement is towards back wages and reinstatement, but it cannot be considered as in lieu of gratuity which otherwise any workman or employee would be entitled to get as per the Act for the period during which he had worked. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 had discharged duty upto 15.11.2000 and by which period he had worked for about 28 years. Therefore, the amount of gratuity would be payable to him as per the scheme of the Act for the period during which he had worked. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that merely because lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement has been ordered, the right to get gratuity as per the Act would get extinguished or would not remain. Hence, the contention cannot be accepted.