SHAIK KAISAR Vs. FORBES GOKAK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respective parties.

(2.) The appellants have approached us by intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the letters Patent, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by learned single Judge of this High court in Writ Petition No. 7149/2006 on october 18, 2006.

(3.) Appellants are ex-employees of respondent No. 1. They have accepted voluntary retirement under available scheme and there is no dispute that they are entitled to gratuity. It is also an admitted position that employer - respondent No. 1 has paid the amount of gratuity to the employees as payable according to the notion of the employer. The employees took the dispute to the Controlling authority under Section 7 sub-section 4 of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 because it was their grievance that certain amounts which attracted the definition of "wages" as contained in Section 2 (s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 were excluded by the employer by giving different nomenclature to those amounts and thus they are paid gratuity less than what they are entitled to. The dispute was rejected by the controlling Authority. The employees took up the matter in an appeal before the appellate authority (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which authority was pleased to uphold the contention of the employees vide his order dated september 12, 2006. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the employer approached this Court by way of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India numbered as writ petition No. 7149/2006.