MANAGEMENT KORAKUNDAH ESTATE NILGIRIS Vs. SAGUNTHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief case of the petitioner is as follows: The first respondent herein joined the services of the petitioner on October 15, 1969 and left the employment on November 16, 1990. Thereafter, she did not apply to the petitioner-management for the payment of gratuity by filing necessary forms as required. But she filed an application for payment of gratuity before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein, in G.A. Case No. 135 of 1992 against the petitioner, claiming that the first respondent herein has put in 21 years of service from February 18, 1969 to February 18, 1991. But the second respondent has held that the first respondent herein has rendered 10 years of service to earn gratuity and granted a sum of Rs. 3730.50 towards gratuity against which, the first respondent herein filed an appeal before the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act who in turn modified the order of the controlling authority and awarded a sum of Rs.7834 towards gratuity. Aggrieved against the same, the management has come forward with the present writ petition.

(2.) Heard both sides.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended gratuity is payable only in cases where the worker works atleast 240 days in a year. But all these years, the worker-first respondent did not work for 240 days and hence, he is not entitled for gratuity under the Act. Therefore, the order of the original authority, i.e., controlling authority was correct and the order of the appellate authority modifying the same is not legal and in support of his contention learned counsel has relied on decision reported in Lalappa Lingappa and others v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 852 : 1981 (2) SCC 238 : 1981-I-LLJ-308 wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows: