GRATUITY IS PAYABLE ONLY AFTER 5 YEARS OF SERVICE: MADURAI BENCHSection 4(1) (b)

GRATUITY IS PAYABLE ONLY AFTER 5 YEARS OF SERVICE: MADURAI BENCHSection 4(1) (b) of Gratuity Act enabled an employee to receive gratuity even if he had resigned from service and only condition was that he must have put in five years of service, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has ruled. Hearing a writ petition from Mr R.K.V. Govindaraj of Sattur, Virudhunagar District, a lorry transport operator, challenging order dated March 31, 2009 of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Appellate Authority, Madurai (R-3) dismissing the petitioner's appeal and confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Controlling Authority, Madurai (R-2), holding that Mr V. Chellaiah of Sivakasi (R-1) an employee, eligible for gratuity payment, Mr Justice K. Chandru held that petitioner had "disregarded" his obligation in repudiating case of R-1. The petitioner had simply stated that proceedings issued by Tahsildar, Sattur, dated April 19, 2007 recording a meeting of peace committee conducted by him with petitioner and trade unions. R-1 had claimed gratuity for services in petitioner's lorry transport from April 1, 1991 to April 19, 2007. The petitioner contended that the R-1 was not an employee and he never worked in lorry transport. He was only a casual labourer engaged for loading and unloading work. The R-1's claim application was mala fide and made at the instance of political parties, the petitioner said. The R-2 mentioned that there were 11 workers and hence the Gratuity Act would apply to lorry transport unit. Aggrieved by order of R-2, the petitioner preferred an appeal and contended that the trust placed upon proceedings of peace committee was not permissible. While confirming order of R-2, the R-3 pointed out that the Tahsildar recorded that in place of the R-1, some else would be appointed, would show that the R-1 had worked in petitioner's establishment. The judge said the petitioner did not even give any oral evidence to repudiate claim made by the R-1. Relevant rule only provided a summary procedure and the petitioner could not read into rules as a procedure which was contemplated in a regular court. Since no case was made out by the petitioner to interfere with impugned order, writ petition stood dismissed, the judge held. – www.thehindubusinessline.com