P. SHANMUGASUNDARAM Vs. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 AND DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (through video conference) Heard Mr. K.M.Ramesh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. D.Sathyaraj, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First and Second Respondents and Mr. Anand Gopalan, Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent, and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The Petitioner had made a claim for the payment of gratuity against the Third Respondent in G.A. No. 32 of 2012 under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) before the Second Respondent, who is the Controlling Authority under that Act. According to the Petitioner, though he had worked for 16 years without any break since 1995 as a personal driver to the executives of the Third Respondent Bank, he was orally informed that his services had been severed on attaining the age of 60 years and he was not paid gratuity due for that period of service. The Second Respondent by order dated 19.05.2017 in G.A. No.32 of 2012 and taking into account the definition of 'employer' under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act, as the person, who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, supported by the evidence produced, arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner was an employee of the Third Respondent Bank and held that the Petitioner was entitled to the gratuity of Rs. 64,615/- with simple interest at 10% per annum from the date on which the gratuity became payable till the date on which it is paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of that order.

(3.) In the appeal in G.A. No.16 of 2017 preferred by the Third Respondent under Section 7(7) of the Act before the First Respondent, who is the Appellate Authority, against the aforesaid order passed by the Second Respondent, a copy of the award dated 29.08.2011 in I.D. No. 56 of 2007 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai between the Central Bank of India Staff Union and the Third Respondent, was produced where the demand for regularizing 14 personal car drivers including the Petitioner, was rejected mainly on the ground that they had not been recruited following the prescribed procedure in consonance with the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka -vs- Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] in that regard. The First Respondent relied only on the said award to set aside the order passed by the Second Respondent and allowed the appeal filed by the Third Respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition, challenging the order passed by the First Respondent.