(1.) THE petitioner in this case was employed as a Boiler Attendant in the Indore Textiles Limited at Ujjain. The petitioner's services were terminated by an order dated 3-12-1980 on his reaching the age of superannuation in accordance with the standing orders. The petitioner filed an application for payment of gratuity before respondent No. 2, the Controlling Authority, appointed by the State Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent No. 1 before the respondent No. 2, contending that the appropriate Government in the case of the petitioner was the Central Government and not the. State Government and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 who was appointed by the State Government had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the petitioner. On 31-12-1982 the respondent No. 2 passed a common order in several cases including the case of the petitioner holding that the State Government was not the appropriate Government in the case of the petitioner. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition.
(2.) WE have heard Shri C. M. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. S. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as well as the learned Government Advocate. The appropriate Government has been defined in Section 2 (a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), which is as under :
(3.) TO our mind the main question which falls for consideration in this case is as to what is the meaning to be given to the words 'belonging to or under the control of the Central Government', appearing in the definition of the term appropriate Government in Payment of Gratuity Act. The M. P. State Textiles Corporation Ltd. is a company having a corporate status. The Central Government does not have a Controlling interest in this company. It is, therefore, an establishment or a legal person apart from the Central Government. It is nobody's case that the establishment of Indore Textiles Corporation belongs to the Central Government. What is being contended is that it is a unit under the control of the Central Government. We have, therefore, to see what type of control is envisaged by the legislature to decide the question as to which Government will be the appropriate Government in a particular case. Whether in deciding the issue, the ultimate control exercised by a Government has to be seen or whether day-to-day Control is intended. The Payment of Gratuity Act is a social welfare legislation, the aim of the Act is to provide for terminal benefits, to working class. The purpose of defining appropriate Government is also to avoid confusion as to which Government shall take action in the matter. It was not certainly meant to provide an easy tool to an employer to involve an employee who has served him for a number of years in endless litigation quibbling about which is the 'appropriate Government. ' Considering the Scheme of the Payment of Gratuity Act, it is apparent that the purpose of defining 'appropriate Government' was to remove any confusion as to which Government shall take action and to provide the speediest remedy possible by a forum which would be easily accessible and available to the employee. In this context, therefore, the words under the control of the Central Government shall have to be read as under the day-to-day control of the Central Government. The words cannot be read to mean that even a remote and peripheral control of the Central Government of a unit would also make it appropriate Government in respect of that unit. In this particular case the unit of respondent No. 1 is being managed by the M. P. Textiles Corporation which is an instrumentality of the State of M. P. under a notification issued by the Central Government under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. Only because the Central Government has some control over the company under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. It cannot be said that the control for the purpose of Payment of Gratuity Act is that of the Central Government.