P SELVARAJ Vs. MANAGEMENT OF SHARDLOW INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 3rd Respondent in P.G. Case No.15 of 1999 dated 11.02.2000 and the order of the 2nd Respondent in P.G.A.No.3/2000 dated 27.10.2000, quash the same and consequently direct the first Respondent to pay the balance of Gratuity of Rs.4,558/- along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date it became payable.) The Petitioner seeks for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the third Respondent made in P.G. Case No.15 of 1999 dated 11.02.2000 and to direct the first Respondent Management to pay the balance of Gratuity of Rs.4,558 along with interest.

(2.) TWO points that arise for consideration in the Writ Petition are:- "Whether under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Petitioner is entitled to claim gratuity on the basis of revised rate of wages last drawn by him for the month of July 1998, during which he retired? and "Whether the Management has unilaterally declared one year break-in-service?

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments, the learned Counsel for the Respondent Management has submitted that the Management has rightly taken the salary of June month as wages last drawn and the provisions of the Act cannot be technically interpreted, causing violence to the provisions. Placing reliance upon Vol.103 FJR Page 71 [Executive Engineer and others Vs. Lokesh Reddy and others] the learned Counsel has submitted that merely because the Act is a beneficial legislation, interpretation cannot be stretched to the extent of causing violence to the provisions. Drawing the attention of the court to the Memorandum of Settlement, the learned Counsel for the Management has submitted that the employee having participated in the strike and when the employee has not worked for 240 days, there was break in service of one year and the Gratuity has been rightly calculated at the completed years of service i.e. 31 years. Further drawing the attention of the court to the details of the calculation of Gratuity for the other retired employees, the learned Counsel for the Management has urged that for all the employees, Gratuity was paid only on the basis of the wages last drawn and not the wages payable on the month of retirement. It was further submitted that if the Petitioner's claim is to be allowed, there would be spate of applications from the other employees and the settled claims would be reopened.