TATA TEA LTD Vs. LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned notice No.36/1/2004-CBE dtd. 7/2/2004, by which the Petitioners were asked to show cause as to why action under Sec. 9 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act, 1972') should not be taken for the alleged irregularities. The Petitioner also sought a direction to the respondent not to initiate any action against the petitioners.

(2.) According to the Petitioners/Management, they are into the business of Plantation and even assuming that they have branches in various States, Central Government cannot be said to be an Appropriate Government, as the appropriate Government is defined under Sec. 2 of the Act, 1972, from which it is clear that the plantation is not included. It is the case of the Petitioners/Management that it is no doubt true that more than 100 employees are employed under the plantation, but only the State Government is the Appropriate Government to decide the issue in question and they are entitled to inspect and see whether the provisions of the Act have been complied with or not. Authorities under Central Government have no jurisdiction and on that score, the impugned notice needs interference by this Court. The petitioners have also relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court as well as Madras High Court: i) Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. and Others vs. Appellate Authority and Others, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 356;

(3.) Per contra, Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended that a harmonious reading has to be given to the provisions of Sec. 1 and 2 and that the word "establishment" includes Plantation. When the Act is applicable to the Plantation in terms of Sec. 1, it should not be read in isolation and a conjoint reading of Ss. 1 and 2 reveals that the plantation is an establishment and when the plantation is situated in more than one State, the Central Government is the appropriate Government. He contended that since the benefits of payment of gratuity was not extended to the employees, an inspection was conducted.