SAMUDRAPUR TALUKA KHAREDI VIKRI SANGHA Vs. TAIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Puranik, learned counsel in all these matters at the outset makes a statement, on instructions, that the entitlement of the respondents for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act is not disputed. The only contention raised is that the establishment of the petitioner is a seasonal establishment and therefore, the respondents would be entitled to 7 days wages for every completed year of service as gratuity.

(2.) The controversy, went before the Controlling Authority, who by the judgment dtd. 31/01/2012 (page 42), rendered a finding that considering the petitioner establishment was a ginning factory and therefore, was operational only during the season when the cotton was available held the establishment to be seasonal one. (para 4 page 45). This findings rendered by the Controlling Authority was affirmed by the Appellate Authority in the judgment dtd. 06/3/2014 (para 8 and 9 page 60-61). It was however found, that the payment of gratuity was wrongly computed by the Controlling Authority and the calculations ought to have been as per the proviso to Sub-sec. 2 of Sec. 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore, on this count, the matters were remanded back to the Controlling Authority for computation of the amount of gratuity due and payable.

(3.) Though it is contended by the Dhande, learned counsel for the respondents that remand was a general remand of the entire matter afresh for which he relies upon clause (iii) of the order and judgment dtd. 06/3/2014 by the Appellate Authority (page 63), however, that clause cannot be read in isolation, but will have to be read in consonance with the observations in para 10 of the judgment dtd. 06/3/2014, which specifically holds that the Controlling Authority had not computed the amount of gratuity and therefore, interference was required. It is also material to note, that the findings rendered by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority in the aforesaid two orders and that the petitioner was a seasonal establishment judgments, was never assailed by the respondents and therefore, the finding that the petitioner establishment was a seasonal establishment had attained finality. In that light of the matter, the Controlling Authority, upon remand could not have revisited the finding.