RAMAPPA BHIMAPPA Vs. PHOENIX MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned Counsel; Shri Shah for the petitioner and Shri Bapat for the first respondent.

(2.) THIS is a petition filed by Shri Ramappa Bhimappa, a former employee of the first respondent M/s Phoenix Mills Limited challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. (for short "gratuity Act") Under the impugned orders, the petitioners claim for the alleged balance of gratuity payable namely an amount of Rs. 16,942. 50 has been rejected. Though in the application filed by the petitioner under section 4 read with section 7 of the Gratuity Act, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 15,171. 75. Counsel appearing before me are agreed that as per the petitioners own claim the total dues worked out to Rs. 33171. 75. Admittedly, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 3697. 20 on 22nd October, 1990 and he was further paid an amount of Rs. 12,532. 05 on 7th April, 1994 towards the gratuity. Thus, the petitioner was, in all, paid an amount of Rs. 16,229. 25 towards the gratuity. Deducting this amount from the total amount of Rs. 33,171. 75 the balance would work out to Rs. 16,942. 50 though what was claimed was Rs. 15,171. 75 on an erroneous assumption that Rs. 18,000/- was paid. (What was actually paid to the petitioner was Rs. 16,229. 25 only ).

(3.) THE few facts may be stated as under. The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent as a badli worker on 25th April, 1971. He claimed to have been made permanent on 1st March, 1975. There was general strike in the textile industry with effect from 18th January, 1982. Respondent No. 1 Mill moved the Labour Court by Application No. 38 of 1982. The Labour Court by its order dated 10th February, 1982 declared that the strike resorted to by all the employees of all the departments (except watch and ward department) in all the shifts on and from 18th January, 1982 and continued every day thereafter was illegal in view of the provisions of section 97 (1) (b) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Since the petitioner did not report to duty within the stipulated period after the declaration of the strike as illegal, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 7th July, 1982 pointing out that his services were liable to be terminated and that penal action was liable to be taken against him. No reply was given by the petitioner and order of dismissal was passed on 5th August, 1982.