MEHTANI K K Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed on November 23 1973, as technical hand by respondent No. 3 on a monthly wages of Rs. 750. He worked continuously till May 8, 1981. On that date, his services were illegally terminated by respondent No. 3. It has been averred that no domestic enquiry was ever held nor any opportunity of being heard was granted. The aforestated order was passed in complete violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner sought reference which was granted and the matter was directed to be adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed and the parties led documentary as well as ocular evidence. Upon the perusal of the evidence and taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal made an award on May 18, 1985. A categoric observation has been made that no complaint was made against the petitioner regarding the allegations pertaining to the period prior to the termination of the services, nor the workman was charge-sheeted or any enquiry was held against his alleged mischief. However, it had been held that the cumulative effect of the evidence brought on record is that the relations between the complainant and the management are strained and that they have no liking for each other: Resultantly, the Tribunal refrained itself from granting the reinstatement but, the order of termination had been set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the extent of seven years wages which were being drawn by the workman before his services had been terminated on May 8, 1981. The relevant excerpt of the award reads as under:

(2.) The award was published in the Haryana Government Gazette, dated August 6, 1985, and that the same became effective and enforceable on September 5, 1985,

(3.) The petitioner applied for the payment of gratuity vide application, dated January 30, 1986 after the same had been refused by respondent No. 3, before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues had been framed and that the parties led documentary as well as ocular evidence. The controlling authority placed reliance upon the definition of "employee" as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. It has been categorically held that the petitioner was getting monthly wages which were more than Rs. 1,600 and, therefore, was not entitled to the payment of gratuity. It has also been observed that the petitioner had staked his entire claim before the trial Court and no such application had been filed for claiming the gratuity after the date of termination of services, i.e. May 8, 1981. Thus, the application having been belatedly filed i.e. after five years, the amount is not claimable. It has also been observed that the respondents have disclosed that the wages of seven years as granted by the Labour Tribunal stand paid to the petitioner, which had been granted by way of compensation for not having been granted the relief of reinstatement. The cumulative effect of the findings retained by the Controlling Authority is that the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order, dated December 28, 1987.