RANGAVILAS GINNING Vs. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Rangavilas Ginning, Spinning and Weaving Mill. THE petitioner mill was taken over by the National Textiles Corporation and it had been an Unit of the National Textiles Corporation (Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry) Limited. THE petitioner mill filed the present Writ Petition challenging an order passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'P.G.Act) cum Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), (1st respondent herein) in Gratuity Appeal Nos.241 to 250, 252, 253 of 2003 dated 14.8.04. By the order impugned, the authority dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner management and confirmed the orders passed by the 2nd respondent Controlling Authority under the P.G.Act in various Gratuity Applications and directed them to pay the balance gratuity.

(2.) THE Writ Petition was admitted on 8.11.2004. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted an interim stay after recording that the management had deposited the entire amount with the 2nd respondent to the credit of the appeals. While the 1st and 2nd respondents are represented by the learned Standing Counsel, some of the workmen, who were served were not appearing through any counsel or in person. Some of the contesting respondents have also not been served.

(3.) ON 26.7.1999, the Central Government rejected the waiver of repayment of advance amount. The workmen did not repay the amounts even on monthly instalments. Therefore, the management at the time of their resignation or retirement adjusted those amounts from the terminal dues payable. After adjusting the advance already made, the contesting respondents were paid their statutory gratuity. Notwithstanding the same, the workmen approached the 2nd respondent with different Gratuity Applications 7 of 2001 to 17 of 2001 claiming the unpaid gratuity. The authority issued Notices to the petitioner mill. The petitioner mill appeared before the authority and contended that the quit receipt passed on by each of the workmen at the time of leaving their service can operate an estoppel against their claim for unpaid gratuity. Since the management had paid the recoverable advance, it is not open to them to claim the difference in gratuity, which had been adjusted against the advance already paid.