BIRJU BATRAN Vs. PHOENIX MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Respondent No. 1 waives service. By consent heard forthwith. In the instant case the petitioner joined the services in the year 1961. His services came to be terminated along with other workmen with effect from 28th February, 1982. He was taken back in service on 14th August, 1985. A reference in respect of his dismissal was also made to the Industrial Court. The petitioner applied to the Industrial Court to have his name deleted from the record on the ground that he had compromised the matter with the respondent Company. The Industrial Court on such application, deleted the name of the petitioner from the reference. The petitioner was thereafter paid gratuity some time in the year 1991. After superannuation the petitioner moved an application to the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and claimed the difference on the ground of continuous service. The questions that arise in this petition are the same which have arisen in Writ Petition No. 1036 of 1997. While disposing of the said petition I have held that the services of the workmen were terminated and as such their case does not fall within the meaning of "continuous service as set out under section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act. For the reasons set out in the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1036 of 1997 there is no merit in this petition.

(2.) THE only interference in the case would be in the matter of interest for the delayed payment of the first gratuity amount. In the present case 10% simple interest has been awarded whereas in the case from which Writ Petition No. 1036 of 1997 has arisen 12% was awarded by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner herein would also be entitled to 12% simple interest instead of 10% interest.

(3.) HENCE, Rule made partly absolute only to the extent of interest. There shall be no order as to costs. Record and proceedings of the trial Court be sent back immediately. Petition partly allowed.