HINDUSTAN BROWN BOVERI LTD Vs. C A PANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which is involved in this petition is whether an employee who is found to be receiving a salary of more than Rs. 1000.00 per month on the date on which the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 came into force is entitled to the payment of gratuity under the said Act on the basis of 5 years continuous service on a non-managerial post in the past on the salary of less than Rs. 1000.00 per month. This question arises in the following set of facts.

(2.) The petitioner is a Limited Company and the respondent was in its employment as a Sales Engineer. The respondent joined the service of the petitioner as an Assistant Sales Engineer on 20th June 1962 on the salary of Rs. 450.00per month. He was thereafter promoted as Sales Engi- neer on 1-5-1970 when his salary was more than Rs. 1000.00 per month. The Gratuity Act 1972 came into force on 16th September 1972 On that date the respondent was receiving the salary of Rs. 1200.00 per month i.e. more than Rs. 1000.00 per month. Thereafter the respondent resigned on the 6th August 1973 when his salary was Rs. 1250.00 per month. On his resignation he claimed gratuity under the provisions of the Act but since his claim was not entertained by the petitioner he approached the Control- ling Authority Baroda under the provisions of the Act. The said authority found that though on the date of the application of the Act the respon- dent was receiving the salary of more than Rs. 1000.00 per month the respondent was entitled to gratuity because he had already rendered in the past the continuous service of more than 5 years on a salary which was less than Rs. 1000.00 per month. The said authority accordingly awarded him gratuity on the basis of 8 years service from 20th June 1962 to 30th April 1970 during which period his salary was less than Rs. 1000.00 per month. The total amount of gratuity thus awarded by the said Authority was Rs. 4000.00.

(3.) Against this order the petitioner preferred Appeal before the appellate authority being Appeal No. 34/35. The said authority confirmed the view taken by the Controlling Authority and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that decision of the appellate authority the petitioner has approached this court by this writ petition.