LAWS(APH)-1992-4-49

K GANGADHAR Vs. A A P G A

Decided On April 30, 1992
K.GANGADHAR Appellant
V/S
APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by tne 1st respondent in P.G. application No. 2 of 1986. The matter arises under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The said Central legislation is a beneficial one providing a scheme for the payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oil fields, plantations, ports, railway companies, shops or other establishments and the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The dispute in the instant cases, relates to the payment of gratuity to the petitioners in W.P.No.10233/88 payable by the petitioner in W.P. No.14936/90. To avoid confusion and duplication, I shall refer the petitioners in W.P.No.10233/88 as the workers and the petitioner in W.P.No.14936/90 as the management. The workers are Beedi Rollers entrusted with the said work by the management. The Management has set up abeedi manufacturing unit at Bardipur within the precincts of Nizamabad. The workers are not only the persons employed for that purpose, but several persons numbering more than 10 have been employed for such purpose. For establishing a Beedi manufacturing unit, the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 which is also a central beneficial legislation, obligates the management to obtain a licence as contemplated under Section 4 thereof. It is not in dispute that the management in the instant case is an industrial premises, coming under the purview of the Act mentioned supra obligating to obtain a licence therefor and when the management has obtained a licence to that effect, it is needless to mention that all the incidents arising under the said statute, statutory rules framed thereunder as also the conditions of licence have got to be scrupulously followed. More so, in a case of this nature which is a beneficial scheme with an avowed object of protecting, safeguarding and benefitting the workers like the instant one. The words employer, establishment, industrial premises, and manufacturing process are defined under definition clause contained under Section 2(g), (h), (i), (j), (k) of the aforesaid Act, Section 38 says that Chapter IV and Section 85 of the Factories Act, 1948 shall apply to Industrial premises and the rest of the provisions in that Act shall not apply to any industrial premises and further says that nothing contained in any law relating to regulation of conditions of work of Workers in shops or commercial establishments shall apply to any shop to which this Act applies. By virtue of Section 39, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are made applicable in respect of other industrial premises. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is made applicable to every factory, mine, oil-field, plantation, ports and railway company under Section l(3)(a) and under Section 1 (3)(b) to every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State in which 10 or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding 12 months and under Section l(3)(c) to such other establishments or class of establishments in which 10 or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding 12 months as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.

(2.) The contentions advanced on behalf of the management are as follows:

(3.) On the other hand, the contention of the workers and supported by the Government are that the Payment of Gratuity Act, is applicable to the workers even though they are governed by Beedi and Cigar Workers Act, 1966 and the place where the management carries on manufacturing of beedis, as also the places ancilliary thereto, come within the definition of Establishment and as such, the workers are entitled for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and that even if the management has got several units like the one at Nizamabad and also elsewhere in other States, the same cannot be termed as branches and each unit is an independent unit and the unit at Nizamabad is an independent unit and is an independent industrial premises and as such, the licence was obtained by the management from the State Government for the said independent unit and that the controlling authority under Section 3 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is the Assistant Commissioner of Labour as notified and gazetted in the A.P. Official Gazette No.l-B, dated 3-1-1985. The said gazette is produced before me and it is clear from the said gazette that at item No.22 concerning the notification, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad is the controlling authority for the Districts of Nizamabad and Medak.