P MALLIGARJUNAN Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 23 petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the common order dated 18.06.2009 passed by the first respondent Joint Commissioner of Labour cum Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in A.G.A. Case Nos.1/2009 to 29 of 2009. Though the order had covered 29 workers, only 23 of them have come before this Court. By the impugned order, the authority held that the workmen, who are the petitioners before this Court, are entitled for limited Gratuity namely for the period from 20.03.1998 to 28.06.2005, from the date of closure of "A" Mill of M/s.Dhanalakshmi Mills Limited, Thiruppur i.e., nearly for a period of seven years, they will not be eligible for gratuity. In respect of "B" Mill workers, they will not be eligible for gratuity for the period from 20.07.1992 to 28.06.2005 i.e., for a period of 13 years. In respect of interest, it was also directed that the workers will get interest only from the natural date of retirement, till the date of their filing the claim before the Controlling Authority. It is this order dated 18.06.2009, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) WHEN the writ petition came up on 30.12.2009, the same was admitted. Pending the writ petition, an interim injunction was granted preventing the authorities from disbursing the balance amount to the third respondent Management. With reference to the direction application, the amount covered by the Controlling Authority's order dated 03.11.2009 alone, which was the revised calculation, was directed to be paid, by order dated 12.03.2010 of this Court. On notice from this Court, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 02.03.2011.

(3.) SIMILAR was the case in respect of "A" Mills workers where the Mills was closed from 20.03.1998 to 28.06.2005. The Controlling Authority, on erroneous reading of Section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, held that the workers are entitled for the entire period of service and during the period in which they did not attend to work, cannot be treated as break in service, as no orders were passed in this regard by the Management. But however, the appellate authority, on appeal, has correctly held that the dispute in I.D.No.326 of 1999 was resolved by an award dated 17.08.2004 and it took it account the pleadings and evidences let in by the parties, including the settlement reached between the Unions and held that they are eligible for the relief. Therefore, the workmen, having not worked for 240 days of actual work and not covered by the exception found under Section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, are not eligible to count the said period for the purpose of gratuity. SIMILAR was the case in respect of other set of workmen, who refused to join the other Mills despite being offered to join and continued to stay away till their appeals were exhausted and hence, for that period, they are not eligible for gratuity and it correctly held that for the period in which the Mills was under closure, they are not eligible for any gratuity.