RHONE POULENE INDIA LTD Vs. ANJALI DEVRUKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in the present case falls in a narrow compass. The question before the Court is as to whether the appropriate government in relation to the petitioner is the Central Government or the State government for the purposes of the PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972. Section 2 (a) of the Act defines the expression "appropriate Government" thus :

(2.) The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products. In December, 2000, the petitioner acquired over 40% of the equity share capital of May and Baker India Limited. In January, 2001 a further 20% came to be acquired. The first respondent and 272 other workmen whose names are listed in Annexure-A to the petition accepted voluntary retirement from service under a scheme which was floated by the management under the approval of the Income Tax Department. Nearly five years thereafter, these employees filed applications before the State Controlling Authority claiming gratuity for the period after their actual severance until the date on which they would have attained the normal retirement age of 60 years.

(3.) The petitioner filed a preliminary objection to the applications in january, 2000 raising an objection to the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority appointed by the State Government. Evidence was adduced by the management and on behalf of the workmen. The Controlling Authority by an order dated 3rd july, 2001 held that the appropriate Government was the State Government and that it would accordingly have jurisdiction. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority on 31st October, 2001.