BABURAM RAMESHWAR Vs. PHOENIX MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Respondent No. 1 waives service. By consent petition heard forthwith. The point involved in this petition is interpretation of the words "continuous service" as defined in section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The relevant portion of section 2-A (1) reads as under:--

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are as under:-"the petitioner was employed with the respondent No. 1. There was a general strike in the mills which includes the respondent No. 1 mill. The said strike was declared as illegal strike by the Court under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act by its order dated 10th February, 1982. The petitioners services came to be terminated on 28th February, 1982. The petitioner was taken back in service on 6th June, 1983. No fresh letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner. His number under the P. P. F. and E. S. I. Scheme remained the same. The Government of Maharashtra was pleased to make a reference in respect of dismissed workmen of the respondent No. 1. The said reference came to be numbered as Reference No. IT/21/86. The petitioner filed a pursis in the said reference setting out therein that his name be dropped from the reference as he has settled the matter with the respondent No. 1. The Industrial Court by Part-I Award dated 10th July, 1990 was pleased to exclude the name of the petitioner from the reference. In the pursis it was set out that the petitioner had compromised with the respondent No. 1 directly outside the Court and had brought the dispute to an end. It is further pointed out that no further dues were payable to the petitioner except Gratuity and leave pay and there was no other claim of whatsoever kind against the Company. Subsequently Gratuity was paid to the petitioner for the period upto 28th February, 1982. Petitioner thereafter has also been paid gratuity for the period from 6th June, 1983 till his superannuation. The service record of the petitioner which was produced and relied upon also shows that he was shown to be reemployed on 6th June, 1983.

(3.) THE petitioner after superannuation filed a claim before the Competent Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. It was the contention of the petitioner therein that he was employed with the respondent No. 1 from 8th March, 1956 and that he had completed 39 years of service and he was superannuated on 7-5-1995. In the total gratuity payable, the petitioner deducted the amount already received by him and claimed balance of Rs. 42,976. 00. The said application was moved on 24th July, 1995. The Controlling Authority by order dated 31st August, 1996 has been pleased to dismiss the application moved by the petitioner. The Authority held that there was break in services of the applicant. The Authority also gave a finding that the petitioner was paid the gratuity due and payable. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Appellate Authority by order dated 31st March, 1997 partly allowed the Appeal by setting aside the order and modified it to the limited extent that it awarded interest at 12% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity amount of Rs. 9,700/- which was due and payable to the petitioner in the year 1982 but which was paid in 1990. The petitioner aggrieved by both the order refusing continuity of service has preferred this petition.