EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION Vs. K J VERGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent herein was employed by the Southern Railway administration under the Executive Engineer (Construction) Erode as a casual labour from 16-9-1961. He was retrenched from service on 207-1974. At the time of retrenchment he was working as a lorry driver. On the ground that he had worked for more than five years continuously and was drawing a daily rate of Rs. 10-40 at the time of his retrenchment, he made an application claiming a sum of Rs. 2,028 as gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The second respondent who is the controlling authority under the Act dismissed that application holding that the first respondent was not eligible for any gratuity under the said Act as the said Act is not applicable to persons working under the Railway Administration and that in any event the first respondent who has been paid retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot claim gratuity.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against the order of the Controlling Authority the first respondent preferred an appeal to the third respondent contending that the Railway Administration will come under the definition of " Railway Company " as defined under the Act and that, therefore, he is eligible for gratuity under the Act. He also contended that even retrenched employees who have received the retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act are entitled to the payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Act. On the other hand, the contention of the Railway Administration before the third respondent was that the Railway Administration owned and operated by the Union of India cannot be construed as a "railway Company" for the purpose of the Act and that in any event the first respondent who was only a casual employee and having been retrenched on payment of retrenchment compensation such retrenchment will not amount to a termination of employment as contemplated by Section 4 of the Act. The Appellate Authority accepted the contention of the first respondent both the points, and held that Sections 3 (4) and 3 (5) of the Indian Railways Act indicate that State owned Railway Administration is also a railway company, that retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act will amount to termination of employment as contemplated by Section 4 of the Act and that, therefore, the first respondent is eligible for payment of gratuity under the Act.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against the said order of the appellate authority, the Railway Administration has filed this writ petition. It is contended by the Railway Administration that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is clearly erroneous in that the Railway Administration cannot be brought within the definition of a Railway Company which alone comes under the Payment of Gratuity Act, and that the retrenchment of an employment so as to attract Section 4 of the Act. Thus, the two questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition are these :