M VAIRAMUTHU Vs. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s.Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (for short IRE Ltd.) which is a wholly owned Central Government Company is the petitioner in all writ petitions except in W.P.(MD)No.10377 of 2007. They have come forward to challenge the orders of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai) in W.P.(MD)Nos.1343 to 1346, 12175 to 12177, 11358 to 11360 of 2008, 46 to 48 of 2009. In W.P.(MD)Nos.2851, 5084 to 5093, 5426, 9151 to 9153 of 2008, they have challenged the orders of the Controlling Authority (Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)) in granting gratuity for the period when the contesting respondents workmen were employed on casual or temporary basis before their spell of employment as permanent workers in the company. In W.P.(MD)No.10377 of 2007, three workers have filed a writ petition challenging the order of the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in declining to grant any relief to them. I. History of the litigation :

(2.) The short facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are as follows: The IRE Ltd. started its mining operations at Manavalakurichi village, a remote non-discrept village in Kanyakumari District in the early 1960s. At that time, they were constructing the plant. Workers were employed for construction works and for early mining operations. The mining operations involved sand gathered by beach washing. After processing the same, they extract various rare minerals. The workers involved in the early construction works were subsequently retrenched for want of work. At that time, because of lack of Unionization and not being aware of various labour legislations, workers did not fight for any relief before the forums under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Subsequently, when mining operations got expanded and there was need for more workers, the workers who were retrenched in the late 1960s and early 1970s, staked their claim for reemployment in terms of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. There were disputes between the workers who had by then organised into trade unions and the management of IRE. This resulted in some of the workers who were originally employed either as casual or temporary, being taken back again as casual or temporary and subsequently made permanent. Some of the workers were also absorbed as permanent workers directly.

(3.) The workers who were either re-employed or recruited as permanent workers after their regular service got superannuation from the employment of IRE Ltd. At the time of superannuation (which were on different dates), the workers were paid their terminal benefits including gratuity. While calculating gratuity, the IRE Ltd. counted their regular service in the company and paid gratuity. The workmen long after their settlement of gratuity by the management, staked their claim for further gratuity for their first spell of employment in the IRE Limited in the 1960s and 1970s. Since the IRE Limited did not pay gratuity for that portion of their service, the workmen moved the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). The said authority when held in their favour, the IRE Limited filed appeals before the appellate authority, i.e. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central). When that was also rejected, they have come forward with the first set of writ petitions as noted above.