Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Kalyanarama Mica Mine vs The Appellate Authority Under Payment ... on 18 October, 2024
APHC010569882005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Writ Petition No.24141 of 2005
Between:
Sri Kalyanarama Mica Mine ...PETITIONER
AND
The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of ...RESPONDENT(S)
Gratuity Act and others Counsel for the Petitioner:
K. Udaya Sri Counsel for the Respondents :
Hema Jaiswal The Court made the following Order :
The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Regional Labour Commission (Central), Hyderabad in application dated 29.02.2005.
2. The 2nd respondent joined the service of the petitioner on 08.05.1970 and resigned from service on 04.08.1999. The 2 nd respondent claimed gratuity for the service rendered by him and approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada //2// WP.No.24141 of 2005 and filed case No.61 of 2004. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour dismissed the claim of petitioner therein vide proceedings dated 22.02.2005. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour held that as per Section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 only 15 days wages for each completed years should be paid as gratuity to the worker. The Assistant Commissioner also considered the submission of the petitioner herein that an amount of Rs.14,790/- was paid basing on the last drawn basic wages per day. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour also upheld the contention of the petitioner that except wages no DA and other allowances would be considered for payment of gratuity.
3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant commissioner of Labour, the 2nd respondent filed application No.7 of 2005 before the Appellant authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Appellate Authority allowed the claim of the 2 nd respondent and directed payment of balance gratuity together with simple interest.
4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority the petitioner had filed the present writ petition seeking setting aside of the orders passed by the appellate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority erred in considering and including variable Dearness Allowance also in wages for determining the gratuity.
//3// WP.No.24141 of 2005
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the notification dated 3rd January, 2002, issued by the Ministry of Labour which proposed the revision in minimum wages per day.
6. As seen from the explanation for the purpose of notification regarding minimum rates of wages include the basic rates, cost of living allowance including special allowance and the cash value of the concessional supply if any, of essential commodities.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that variable Dearness Allowance ought not to be included in wages for computing the gratuity is without any justification. The law does not permit differentiation between Dearness Allowance and variable Dearness Allowance. Law also does not differentiate between special allowance/ Dearness Allowance/ variable Dearness Allowance. In such circumstances, the stand of the petitioner that special Dearness Allowance ought not to be included in wages for determining the gratuity has no basis.
8. It is trite to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. its workmen1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that gratuity for workers is no longer a gift. A broad and generous approach by the management has to be exhibited subject to the financial condition. 1 1977 (2) SCC 329 //4// WP.No.24141 of 2005 It also held that determination of gratuity is not based on any definite rules and each case must depend upon the prosperity of the concerned, needs of the workmen and the prevailing economic conditions, examined in the light of the auxiliary benefits which the workmen may get on determination of employment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also clarified that the wages will mean and include basic wages and dearness allowance and nothing else. This corresponds to Section 2(s) of the Act. As the law doesn't differentiate between variable dearness allowance and the dearness allowance. The distinction drawn by the petitioner that wages would not include variable Dearness Allowance is illegal and against the law.
9. There is no error in the order passed by the appellate authority.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM //5// WP.No.24141 of 2005 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.24141 of 2005 Dated 18.10.2024 KGM