LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-484

TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT

Decided On February 06, 2018
TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LTD Appellant
V/S
Assistant Commissioner Of Controlling Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a company owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is having manufacturing units in Tamil Nadu and also marketing depots not only in various regions in Tamil Nadu but also in the State of Kerala. The second respondent was employed as Assistant Manager (Marketing). He was also posted at Palakkad. The second respondent reached the age of superannuation on 31.05.2014. He filed an application dated 14.07.2014 before the first respondent claiming payment of gratuity. The first respondent took the same as P.G.No.7 of 2014 and issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner raised a preliminary issue pointing out that P.G.No.7 of 2014 is not maintainable as it is only the Central Government which is the appropriate Government. The said application was however not accepted by the first respondent and an order to that effect was passed in I.A.No.51 of 2015 filed by the petitioner herein. The same is impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) The question is before this Court is which is the appropriate Government in relation to the petitioner. The expression "appropriate Government" is defined under Section 2(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In relation to an establishment having been branches in more than one State, the appropriate Government will be the Central Government. In the present case, it is admitted that the petitioner is having depots in Kerala. In fact, the second respondent himself was transferred to Palakkad Depot.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would point out that only if the petitioner is having a branch in more than one state, Central Government will be the appropriate Government. Merely having depots in another State will not make the Central Government as the appropriate Government in this case. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the expression "branch" has not been defined in the statute.