NARRA KOTESWARA RAO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for calling the records and quash the order dt. 28-2-2000 made in PGA No. 5/1999 on the file of the first respondent by declaring as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

(2.) The petitioner who worked as Manager (Administration) of the third respondent-Company moved the second respondent for payment of gratuity under Sec. 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act (for short 'P.G. Act, 1972') by filing an application under Sec. 7(4) of the P.G. Act 1972 r/w Rule 10(1) of A.P. Payment of Gratuity Rules. The second respondent by his order dt. 5-9-99 dismissed the application holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the third respondent establishment is having offices in several States and advising the petitioner to file a claim petition before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent in PGA No. 5/99. The first respondent by the impugned order dismissed the appeal holding that the third respondent is having offices at Bombay Chennai and Delhi and as such the appropriate Government for the establishment is the Central Government but not the State Government. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that the appropriate authority to deal with the application filed by the petitioner is the State Government as the third respondent at Vijayawada is registered as Factory and the same will fall only under Sec. 2(a)(ii) "in any other case the State Government" and as such the authority under P.G.Act, 1972 as well as the appellate authority erred in dismissing the application stating that it is only an establishment, therefore, the petitioner has to move the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central).

(3.) The 3rd respondent filed a counter admitting the fact of the petitioner having worked in third respondent establishment. The third respondent further stated that the petitioner has forged his date of birth and continued in service for 5 years from 16-12-1992 to 16-12-1997 after the age of superannuation and illegally received a sum of Rs. 4,58,367/- towards salary from 16-12-1992 to 16-12-1997 in excess of what is payable to him, in respect of which a Criminal Case No. 523/99 was filed by the State against the petitioner in the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for offences punishable under Sees. 408, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and the same is pending for trial. He further stated that both the authorities came to the conclusion that the third respondent has got establishments in Bombay, Chennai and Delhi and this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence, as second respondent has rightly held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity and it is only the controlling authority appointed by the Central Government that has got the jurisdiction to entertain the same in view of Sec.2(a)(i)(b).