Madras High Court
The Management Of Spencer & Co. Ltd., ... vs The Appellate Authority Under The ... on 29 July, 2002
Author: V.S. Sirpurkar
Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar
JUDGMENT V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the orders of the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act whereby the said appellate authority had confirmed the orders of the controlling authority wherein the workman was granted the gratuity, calculating the maximum gratuity period of twenty months at the rate of 30 days per month, i.e. for 600 days.
2. It is an admitted case that the last drawn monthly salary of the 3rd respondent-employee was Rs.1,345/-. On that basis, the total gratuity granted by the Controlling Authority was Rs.31,038.46. However, according to the employer, the total gratuity payable was only Rs.26,900/-, which was paid to the employee. The employee, feeling dissatisfied by this payment, approached the Controlling Authority, who awarded the enhanced gratuity at Rs.31,038.46.
3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Controlling Authority, employer preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under the Act. The appellate authority, however, rejected the appeal. The employer challenged the order passed by the appellate authority by filing writ petition before this Court which was dismissed by the learned single Judge, necessitating the present writ appeal by the employer.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant suggests that all the authorities below were in error in making the calculation as, according to him, the maximum gratuity payable was limited by Sec.4(3) of the Act as it stood then, and, therefore, applying that section, the maximum gratuity payable was for twenty months. Even if as per Sec.4(2) of the Act more amount became payable, applying the formula given under Sec.4(2), he pointed out that, the salary being Rs.1,345/- per month, the maximum gratuity payable was twenty months' salary and the total amount of gratuity would come to Rs.26,900/-. Therefore, even on the basis of the long service rendered by the employee, the gratuity amount cannot be more than the twenty months' salary and it will be only that amount which will be payable and that cannot exceed Rs.26,900/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employee-respondent, however, pointed out that the question was no more res integra and the amount of gratuity had to be calculated as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jeewanlal Ltd. etc. v. Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act and others (1984 II LLJ SC 464).
5. Learned counsel pointed out that the Apex Court had in Jeewanlal case, cited supra, had confirmed the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jeewanlal Ltd. and others v. Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and others (1982 I LLJ 86). Learned counsel points out from the facts therein, more particularly stated in paragraph 12, that in that case the employees had put in 35 years of service and payment of gratuity made to the employee worked out only to 520 days' wages and not 20 months' wages or 600 days' wages which the employees were bound to get in terms of Sec.4(3) of the Act. In that case, the demand of the employees was that the rate of wages per day must be arrived at by dividing the monthly wages by the number of working days, viz. 26 days and on the basis of the figure so arrived the monthly wages must be calculated by multiplying the figure by 30 and the sum arrived must again by multiplied by 20 to conform to the requirement of Sec.4(3) of the Act. The employees claim that under Sec.4(3), as it stood then, even if it was said that the amount of gratuity payable to the employee shall not exceed 20 months' wages, the 20 months' wages were bound to be arrived at by the aforementioned calculation. Learned counsel points out from the contents of paragraph 12 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court that the employee's contention was accepted therein by the appellate authority, which was ultimately upheld by the Division Bench.
6. Learned counsel further pointed out that the Apex Court accepted this calculation more particularly in paragraph 13 of its judgment in Jeewanlal Ltd. case, cited supra. Learned counsel points out that in that paragraph, the Supreme Court has, for the purposes of Sec.4(3) of the Act, as it stood then, first applied the formula of arriving at a day's wage by dividing the monthly salary by 26 and not by 30 and then directed the quotient to be multiplied by 600 and not by 520, as was suggested by the learned counsel for the employer.
7. It is, therefore, clear that the Supreme Court has approved the calculation made by the Division Bench of this Court, which we have pointed out above. In our opinion, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jeewanlal case, cited supra, clinches the issue. If that is so, there would be no question of looking hither and thither and the calculations made by the controlling authority here as also approved by the learned single Judge would have to be accepted.
8. In that view, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the appeal is directed to be dismissed but without any orders as to the costs.