HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. SHIV NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of service of the summons on the opposite party no one has appeared.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order passed by the controlling authority under the Payment of gratuity Act as well as the Appellate Order. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the petition is, that the respondent No. 1 was an employee in the petitioner's establishment and had worked upto August 6, 1977 and thereafter his services was discharged. It is alleged that full and final settlement of his dues was paid to him. It transpires that after two years, the respondent No. 1 was given a fresh employment w. e. f. July 9, 1979 and he continued to work till he retired from the service w. e. f. August 11, 1987. The workman filed an application under Section 4 of the payment of Gratuity Act for payment of his gratuity which included the period from 1967 to august 6, 1977 and from July 9, 1979 till the date of his retirement. The petitioner objected to the inclusion of the period prior to August 6, 1977 and submitted that his earlier employment for the period 1967 to 1977 had come to an end and that from August 6, 1977 to July 8, 1978 there was no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the Workman and therefore, the period prior to July 9, 1977 could not be included towards his length of service while calculating the payment of gratuity under; sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Payment of gratuity Act. The Controlling Authority rejected the submission of the petitioner and also took into consideration the length of service of the workman prior to the period of] july 9, 1979. The petitioner filed an appeal which was also rejected. Consequently, the writ petition.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding, it would be better to have a look at Section 4 (1), of the Payment of gratuity Act is reads as under: