M.M.T.C. Vs. MIHIR KUMAR CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions are inter-connected and identical questions of facts and laws are involved, therefore, they are being head and disposed of with the consent of the parties by this common judgment. Order dated 31st January, 2000 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as well as Appellate Authority dated 25th October, 2000 are under challenge in these petitions.

(2.) For the sake of brevity the facts of C.W.J.C. No. 2040 of 2001 (M/s. M.M.T.C. (Mica. Division) Minerals & Metal Trading Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and others) are being discussed to understand the controversy respondent No. 2 Sri Sajjan Kumar Bhudolia was appointed as daily rated worker on 7.5.1973. His services were regularized with effect from 13.5.1975. He retired on 10.7.1993 under the Voluntarily Retirement Scheme. Applicant respondent No. 2 Sri Sajjan Kumar Bhudolia was paid gratuity with effect from 13.5.1975 to 10.7.1993. Since gratuity for the period when applicant worked as daily rated worker has" not been paid, respondent No. 2 moved the authority and on the application of applicant-respondent No. 2, Authority has passed the order directing the petitioner to pay gratuity as well as statutory interest @ 10% per annum for the period applicant-respondent No. 2 had worked as daily rated worker.

(3.) Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that prior to the regularization of service on 13.5.1975, the applicant-respondent No. 2 was working as daily rated casual worker, therefore, to attract entitlement for the gratuity, applicant-respondent No. 2 has to prove that for each and every year prior to his regularization, he had actually worked for 240 days Mr. Sahay has further argued that both the authorities below have not recorded any finding that the applicant-respondent No. 2 had, in fact, worked for 240 days per year before regularization of service. Therefore, order impugned is against' the mandate of Section 2-A read with Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972. Mr. Sahay has further argued that in the absence of finding that on the date of order passed by the competent authority 10% per annum was the prevailing rate of interest, award of interest at the rate of 10% per annum is not legal. He has further argued that there is mistake of calculation.