Karnataka High Court
M/S Hmt Watches Limited vs The Controlling Authority 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.32576/2015 (L-PG)
BETWEEN
M/S. HMT WATCHES LIMITED
HMT WATCH FACTORY I & II
HMT POST,
JALAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 013
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL TECHNICAL MANAGER,
MR. SUBRAMANYA
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. R.H. DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE
(PHYSICAL HEARING)]
AND
1. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
ASSISTANT LABOUR
COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
SHRAM SADAN,
3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
YESHWANTHPUR
INDUSTRIAL SUBURB II STAGE,
TUMKUR ROAD -560 022
2. MRS. D.C. VARALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
WIFE OF SHRI R. RAJAGOPAL,
2
NO.1538, 20TH "R'' CROSS,
DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
OPP BALAJI KALYANA MANTAP
BANGALORE - 560 024.
3. MRS. S.V. SARASWATHI
W/O. SHRI V. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.95, OFFICERS MODEL COLONY,
T. DASRAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 057.
4. MRS. S.R. SUMITHRAMMA
W/O. SHRI M.S. RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
NO.48, GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
1ST STAGE, 6TH CROSS,
W C ROAD, M P POST,
BANGALORE - 560 019.
5. MR G. SUBRAMANYAM,
SINCE DECEASED
BY LR'S
(A) S. SHANTHAMMA
W/O. G. SUBRAMANYAM,
C/O. M.C. CHAYAPATHAIAH
NO.3, NAGASANDRA,
2ND MAIN ROAD, T. NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 028.
(B) G. YADURAJ
S/O. G. SUBRAMANYAM,
C/O. M.C. CHAYAPATHAIAH,
NO.3, NAGASANDRA,
2ND MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 028.
(C) MS. G. LEELAVATHY
3
D/O. G. SUBRAMANYAM,
C/O M.C. CHAYAPATHAIAH
NO.3, NAGASANDRA,
2ND MAIN ROAD, T. NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 028.
6. MR. H. HUCHARAYAPPA
S/O. SHRI H. BANGARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
D.NO.840, 5TH BLOCK,
19TH CROSS,
HMT LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 097.
7. MRS. N.A. GANGAMMA
W/O. SHRI N P ACHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
NO.7/1, CAUVERY NILAYA,
11TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 097.
8. MRS. M.M. PONNAMMA
W/O. SHRI A W CHENGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
NO.392, MUTHYALANAGAR,
5TH CROSS, GOKULA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 054.
9. MR. P.M. AMBIGA RAI
W/O. SHRI NANDAN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
NO.334, 335, FLAT NO.4,
13TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, BEL LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 097.
4
10. MRS. Y. PREMA
W/O. SHRI CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
NO.408, 9TH MAIN
1ST STAGE, B C C LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 040.
11. MRS. VRUNDA K
W/O. SHRI V V BABULKAR,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
NO.74, 5TH CROSS,
5TH MAIN, R P C LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 004.
12. MR. VENKATAPPA
S/O. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.01, BASCRA BASAVA
SAMITHI LAYOUT,
THINDLU,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 097.
13. MR. K. NAGARAJA
S/O. SHRI K.N. KRISHSNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
SITE NO.6, BESIDE 66
NANJAPPA LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 097.
14. MRS. M. SOUGTHAMANI
W/O. SHRI SUGANTHARAJ
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO.2, SUNA LANE,
KADUGONDANAHALLI,
ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
BANGALORE - 560 045.
5
15. MRS. C. VENI
W/O. SHRI T. GURUMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
C/O. B P THANGAVELU,
A K COLONY,
TANNERY ROAD CROSS,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
16. MR. JAMES L.A.
S/O. SHRI ANTHONY L
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
11/1124, 2ND BLOCK,
3RD MAIN, BEL LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 097.
17. MRS. BOJAMMA BHEEMAIAH
W/O. SRI. B. P. BHEEMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO.9, 1ST CROSS, D BLOCK,
KANAKANAGAR,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 032.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.R. DODWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI. PREMKUMAR ADVOCATE FOR
PREMKUMAR AND ASSOCIATES FOR R-3, R-4, R-6,
R-9 & R-11;
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
R-2, R-8, R-10, R-13, R-14, R-15 AND R-17 ARE
SERVED & UNREPRESENTED V/O DATED:13/03/2018;
NOTICE TO R-5(A-C);
R-7, R-12 & R-16 ALL HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.48 (1 TO 17)
2013-B3 ON THE FILE OF THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
6
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: 08.06.2015 MAY BE
PLEASED TO AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
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 08.06.2015, of the Controlling Authority determining gratuity payable to the respondents-workmen for the training period that they were appointed.
2. Respondent Nos.2 to 17 were appointed in the HMT Watches Limited between the years 1963 - 1976 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 7 the said respondents retired from services either on voluntary retirement or attaining the age of superannuation between 1998 and 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 their retirement with the period ranging between 6 years and 13 years, the respondents approached the Controlling Authority 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 17 underwent when they were appointed between 8 the years 1963 - 1976. 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.
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 17 were not employees of the Company.
9
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 17 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 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.
10
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 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 11 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 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 12 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 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."13
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 08.06.2015 passed by the Controlling Authority in Application No.48 (1 to 17) 2013-B3 is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SJK