MANAGEMENT OF COIMBATORE MURUGAN MILLS Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Textile Mill, taken over by the National Textiles Corporation. A dispute arose with reference to the entitlement of gratuity made by the 3rd respondent. Since full gratuity was not paid, the 3rd respondent filed a Gratuity Application before the first respondent, who is the Controlling authority, notified by the Central Government. THE said gratuity application was taken on file as Gratuity Application No.46 of 1994.

(2.) TWO specific questions arose before the first respondent. The first question is whether the 3rd respondent/workman is entitled for gratuity for a period of six years, namely 1974, 1979, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1997, during which period allegedly there was a strike in the mills. The second question is that the mill, in which the 3rd respondent/workman was working, was originally owned by a private company and on account of prolonged closure (nearly for three years), the mill was subsequently taken over by National Textiles Corporation Ltd., through a Parliamentary enactment. In that event whether the 3rd respondent/workman is entitled for gratuity for the said closure period.

(3.) IT is brought to the notice of this Court that the attempt by the 3rd respondent/workman as well as the appeal by the writ petitioner in moving the authorities constituted by the Central Government for gratuity is totally misconceived. Even though the mills (Coimbatore Murugan Mills), in which the 3rd respondent/workman was working, was taken over by the National Textiles Corporation, still in so far as the mill is only a Factory and the fact that the National Textiles Corporation Ltd. is having several factories all over India, has no relevance for holding that the Central Government was the appropriate Government. On the contrary, as per the definition of Section 2a(ii) of the P.G.Act, it can only be the State Government (See Jeevanlal Ltd., vs. Controlling Authority under the P.G.Act reported in 1982(1) LLJ 84).