Karnataka High Court
M/S Hmt Watches Limited vs The Controlling Authority And on 15 December, 2020
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.35637/2015 (L-PG)
BETWEEN
M/S HMT WATCHES LIMITED
HMT WATCH FACTORY I & II
HMT POST
JALAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560013
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY MANAGER (HR)
MR.H.S.SHIVAPRAKASH ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. R.H. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE
(PHYSICAL HEARING)]
AND
1. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY AND
ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
(CENTRAL) SHRAM SADAN,
3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, YESHWANTHAPUR
INDUSTRIAL SUBURB II STAGE
TUMKUR ROAD-560022
2. MR.MAHALINGAPPA
SON OF MR.C.R.LAKSHMAIAH
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NO.22502, 3RD 'A' MAIN
DEVARAYAPATNA
2
NEW EXTENSION,
TUMKUR-572 101
3. MR.K.H.LASHMIKANTHA
SON OF HANUMAIAH,
AGED MAJOR
RESIDING AT PETE BEEDHI,
KYATASANDRA
TUMKUR-572 101
4. MR.LAKSHMAIAH
SON OF RAMAIAH
AGED MAJOR
RESIDING AT NO.159,
TUDA LAYOUT,
BESIDES BADDIHALLI,
TUMKUR-572 104
5. MR.MURALIDHARA.A
SON OF ANANTHNARAYAN IYER,
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT,
ASHWINI NIVAS, TRIVENI ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM, MARALUR,
TUMKUR-572 105
6. MR.L.BOGANNA
SON OF LAKSHMINARASIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT
NO.563, MATHRU KRUPA,
1ST MAIN,
1ST CROSS, GIRINAGAR,
KYATHSANDRA POST,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 104
7. MR.SHIVASHARANAPPA
SON OF MANIK RAO
AGED MAJOR,
3
RESIDING AT
R/O SR.SANGEMESHWARA NIALAYA,
NETAJI ROAD,
VIDAYNAGAR
TUMKUR-572 103
8. MR.H.R.NAGABHUSHANA
SON OF RAMANNA H.V.
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT
BHARADWAJ 10TH CROSS,
D.NO.810, ST EXTENSION,
TUMKUR-572 104
9. MR.H.G.NARAASIMHA MURTHY
SON OF GUNDAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDNG AT "NETHRA NILAYA"
1ST MAIN ROAD,
GIRINAGAR
TUMKUR-572 104
10 . MR.GARUDAIAH
SON OF REVANNASIDDAIAH
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT
HARIKESHI SRS NILAYA,
SAPTAGIRI EXTENSION,
S.S.PURAM POST
TUMKUR-572 102
11 . MR.R.THIMMAIAH
SON OF RANGAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT,
SREENIVASA TILES FACTORY ROAD,
KOTHI TOPE,
TUMKUR-572 102
4
12 . MR.H.S.SHIVAKUMAR
SON OF SUBHRAYAPPA.K.V.
AGED MAJOR
RESIDING AT NO.125, "CHITRANTHANA"
1ST CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURA LINK ROAD
VIDYA NAGAR,
TUMKUR-572 103
13 . MR.T.N.VENKATACHALA
SON OF MUDLAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT, MOHAN NILAYA,
B.A.GUDI PALYA,
NEAR S.L.N.CHOULTRY,
HANUMANTHAPURA
TUMKUR-572 103
14 . MR.M.C.PRAKASH
SON OF CHANNAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT,
VINKATACHALA NILAYA
3RD MAIN ROAD, NRUPATHUNGA EXTENSION,
SHETTIHALLY MAIN ROAD,
TUMKUR-572 102
15 . MR.A.R.SREENIVASA MURTHY
SON OF RANGADASAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT "SREERANGA"
6TH CROSS, LINK ROAD II, MAIN,
VIJAYANAGAR
TUMKUR-572 102
16 . MR.K.S.LAKSHMINARASIMHA
SON OF SEETHARAMA SHETTY,
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT, SRI RANGA
DEVANUR MAIN ROAD,
5
VIJAYANAGAR 5TH MAIN,
S.S.PURAM,
TUMKUR-572 102
17 . MR.SIDDOJI RAO.K.R.
SON OF RANGOJI ROAD
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT, SHIPLA SINDHU,
BEHIND JANATHA COLONY,
SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION,
SHETTY HALLI MAIN ROAD,
TUMKUR-572 102
18 . MR.P.INAKULESHA
SON OF KRISHNACHAR P,
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT SRI. SUBRAMANYA NILAYA,
OPP: S.L.N.KALYANA MANTAP,
HANUMANTHAPURA
TUMKUR-572 103
19 . MR.J.MADHUKAR
SON OF JONATHAN JOEL,
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT, 9TH CROSS,
KANAKAMBRA ROAD,
GOKULA EXTENSION, KYATHAPURA POST
TUMKUR-572 104
20 . MR.HANUMANTHARAYA
SON OF HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT
1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, GIRINAGARA,
KYATHASANDRA POST
TUMKUR-572 104
21 . MR.H.L.NAGARAJA
SON OF LINGAIAH.H.N.
6
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NO.5979, GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT,
SUBHAS NAGARA, NELAMANGALA
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE-562 123
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.R. DODWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2, R3, R5, R6 AND R8 TO R19 ARE
SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2016,
R4 & R20 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT;
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.06.2016
PETITION STANDS ABATED AGAINST R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.48 [1052 TO
1071] 2011-B3 ON THE FILE OF THE CONTROLLING
AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972
AND THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER [CENTRAL]
BANGALORE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE LEGALITY AND
VALIDITY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2015 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner - HMT Watches Limited has preferred the subject writ petition calling in question the order dated 30.06.2015, of the Controlling Authority determining gratuity payable to the 7 respondents-workmen for the training period that they were appointed.
2. Respondent Nos.2 to 21 were appointed in the HMT Watches Limited between the years 1979 - 1980 and were placed on training for the period ranging 8 months to 1 year and subsequent to the training, when the vacancies arose, the respondents were absorbed into the services. While on service, all the said respondents retired from services either on voluntary retirement or attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2003. After their retirement, the respondents were paid gratuity that they were entitled to in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short).
3. After about five years of their retirement, the respondents approached the Controlling Authority 8 under the said Act seeking difference in gratuity. Notwithstanding enormous delay on their part on seeking such relief before the Controlling Authority, the Controlling Authority without going into the question of delay, allowed the claim of the workmen and directed payment of difference in gratuity for the period of 1 year of training that the respondent Nos.2 to 21 underwent when they were appointed between the years 1979 - 1980. The aforesaid order is called in question before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. R.H. Deshpande, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel, Sri. S.R. Dodwad, appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel, Sri. Prem Kumar, appearing for respondent Nos.3, 4, 6, 9 and 11 and perused the material on record. 9
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner in terms of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company were not appointed as regular employees but were trainees and were given only consolidated pay and he would submit that the Certified Standing Orders clearly indicate that respondent Nos.2 to 21 were not employees of the Company.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 21 would dispute by contending that the Certified Standing Orders of the Company classifies 'workman' in which, a 'trainee' is also included under the category of 'workman', whether he is a learner or not; paid allowance or not.
7. The issue with regard to entitlement of the gratuity for the training period is decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 10 W.P.No.26786/2012 concerning the very same employer, by its order dated 08.09.2015, wherein this Court has specifically decided as to whether the trainee would be a workman in terms of the Standing Orders and whether such trainee would be entitled to gratuity under the said Act.
8. The order passed by this Court reads as follows:
"The petitioner was initially appointed as a Trainee Technician by the first respondent-company on 14.9.1971. He was confirmed in service after completion of the period of training on 1.10.1973. He filed a suit in O.S.No.302/1992 before the Civil Court for a declaration that his date of birth is 31.12.1974 and not 10.10.1944. The suit was decreed as prayed for. He was relieved of his duties after accepting his VRS application on 31.3.2001. He filed a writ petition in No.47053/2002 claiming benefits of three years of service for the 11 purpose of calculation of VRS and other service benefits as per the decree of the Civil Court. The writ petition was allowed on 16.10.2003. The first respondent paid the difference of VRS compensation in terms of the said order. The petitioner made an application dated 30.4.2009 before the third respondent claiming difference of gratuity along with interest. The third respondent rejected the application by order at Annexure 'E' dated 4.10.2010. He filed an appeal challenging the said order before the second respondent-appellate authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The second respondent dismissed the appeal by his order at Annexure 'H' dated 29.2.2012. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the orders at Annexures 'E' and 'H' dated 4.10.2010 and 29.2.2012 respectively in this writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any 12 merit in this case. The petitioner was not employed on wages during the training period. The definition of 'trainee' in Certified Standing Orders of the respondent company states that a trainee is an apprentice, who is paid an allowance during the period of his training and who is assured of re-employment in the company only after the satisfactory completion of training. Thus, a trainee is not appointed for employment on wages and the trainee was paid only allowance and engaged in the company to learn the work. Therefore, the authorities below have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner by holding that he is not eligible for gratuity for the period of training.
4. Apart from the above, there was a long delay in making the application claiming difference of gratuity. The petitioner did not show sufficient cause for the delay in making the application after the period prescribed. Therefore, the 13 authorities below have rejected the application on the ground of delay also. I do not find any error in the orders impugned herein. Writ petition is dismissed. No costs."
9. In terms of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid case and the facts obtaining in the case at hand being identical, the following order:
ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed.
b. The order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Controlling Authority in Application No.48 (1052 - 1071) 2011-B3 is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SJK