MANAGEMENT BINNY LTD Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are for a writ of certiorari, for quashing the common order dated August 1, 1986, in P. G. Appeal Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 of 1985 of the 1st respondent.

(2.) THE Management, Binny Limited (Buckingham and Carnatic Mills), Madras - 600 012, is the petitioner in all the writ petitions. The 3rd respondents in the writ petitions are former employees of the mills and they were superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation on different dates. After the superannuation they were paid gratuity computed in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. According to the petitioner, they were on daily rate wages but paid once a month. In January 1980, the Madras Labour Union, on behalf of the members, including the 3rd respondents, demanded payment of gratuity at the rate of 15 days' wages for a maximum period of 20 years, in short for 600 days. This was resisted by the petitioner by its letter dated February 4, 1980 stating that the month has to be reckoned with 26 days and not 30 days, and therefore for 20 years, they would be entitled for, 520 days' wages and not 600 days' wages. Even though the 3rd respondents accepted the payment in full and final settlement without reserving any right, but after, the judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered on August 29, 1984 and reported in Jeevan Lal (1929) Ltd. etc. , v. Appelate Authority Payment of Gratuity Act, (1984-II-LLJ-464 ). Holding that an employee would be entitled to 600 days of wages and not 520 days' wages, the 3rd respondents approached the controlling authority by filing applications claiming the difference between the amount paid and the amount due as per the decision of the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that the applications were time-barred, and the belated claim need not be attended. Even though there was no explanation at all for the delay in the applications, the controlling authority by common order dated August 13, 1985 held that the 3rd respondents were entitled to 600 days of wages and therefore they were entitled to the difference as claimed by them. The controlling authority has also held that the applicants have reasonable grounds for submitting the applications belatedly, since they came to know of their right only after the decision of the Supreme Court. Against the common order dated August 1, 1986 the petitioners preferred 7 appeals as mentioned above and all the appeals were rejected by a common order dated December 30, 1986. Hence the petitioner has preferred these writ petitions.

(3.) THE contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is threefold. (1) The third respondents in all these writ petitions accepted the gratuity paid to them without any dispute whatsoever; (2) The controlling authority as have erred in understanding the scope and effect of form No. 'n' and Rules 7 and 10, and merely because the Act is welfare minded intended to confer benefits for the workmen, that does not mean that Rules under the Act need not be complied with and can be given a go-by. Hence they are estopped from reopening the settled matter.