M/S Dayalal Megji and Co. v. Appellat Uvthourity and Others

Chhattisgarh HC17 Oct 2016WP/3950/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order collectively dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging orders under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court held that home-workers in beedi factories are 'employees' under the Act and allowed claims for gratuity despite limitation arguments, following a coordinate bench.

What did the court decide?

Gratuity claims by Gharkhata beedi workers were allowed; limitation arguments were rejected.

M/S Dayalal Megji and Co. Vs Appellat… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition No. 3921 OF 2006

¶5

Mls Dayalal Megji and Company through its Partner Hemendra Kumar Dayabhai S/o Dayabhai aged 65 years R/o Malviya Road Raipur (CG)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Regionai Labour Commissioner (Centrai) Jabalpur (MP) x 2. Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur (CG) 3. Smt. Kalabai W/o Vishwjeet R/o Shanker Nagar Moti Chowk District Durg (CG)

¶11

----- Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition No. 3949 OF 2006

¶13

M/s Dayalal Megji and Company through its Partner Hemendra Kumar Dayabhai S/o Dayabhai aged 65 years R/o Malviya Road Raipur (CG)

¶14

—--- Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Regional Labour ' Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur (MP)

¶17

Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur (CG) 3. Khorbahrinbai W/o Late Shri Shyamlal R/o Village Singhori Rajim P.O. Baronda Rajrm District Raipur (CG) i

¶18

Writ Petition No. 3950 OF 2006

¶19

-----Respondents

¶20

M/s Dayalal Megji and Company through its Partner Hemendra Kumar Dayabhai S/o Dayabhai aged 65 years R/o Malviya Road Raipur (CG)

¶21

Versus

¶22

Petitioner

¶23

Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur (MP)

¶24

Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Assistant Labour

¶25

¶26

Commissioner (Central)^Raipur (CG)

¶27

Shri Faguram S/o Hinchha^R/o yillage^{BrahamnparaRaiimP.O.NawaparaRajim} District Raipur (CG)

¶28

Writ Petition No. 3951 OF 2006

¶29

M/s Dayalal Megji and^{Companythrough} its Partner Hemendra^{KumarBayabhaiS/o} Dayabhai aged 65 years Rlo^{MalviyaRoadRaipur} (CG)

¶30

Versus

¶31

AppeHate Authority under the Payment^{ofGratuityAct,} 1972/Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabaipur (MP) 2. Controlling Authority under the Payment^{of'GratuityAct,} 1972/Assistant Labour 'Raipur Commissioner (Central) (CG) 3. Shri Banshilal Chouhan H/o LateASushila R/o At& P.O. Nawapara Rajim District Raipur (CG)

¶32

..... Respondents

¶33

‘ AND

¶34

Writ Petition No. 3952 OF 2006

¶35

M/s Dayalal Megji and Company through its Partner Hemendra Kumar Dayabhai S/o Dayabhai aged 65 years R/o Malviya Road Raipur (CG)

¶36

—--- Petitioner

¶37

Versus

¶38

Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur (MP) 2. Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur (CG) 3. Shri Mahadeo S/O'Dadusende R/o Shanker Nagar Ambedkar Chowk Durg (CG)

¶39

-----Respondents

¶40

For Petitioners Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate For Respondents None

¶41

¶42

Hon'ble Shri San'a ’A rawal J.

¶43

Order on Bnard

¶44

17/1 0/201 6

¶45

All the above mentioned petitions involve common facts and common ‘ questions of law and, as such, require consideration and disposal by the common order, leading case of which W.P. No. 3921 of 2006. K

¶46

r A

¶47

Petitioners, in ail the‘cases, have assailed the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short^“the Act, 1972”) and the appellate order passed by the appellate authority under the Act 1972 Petitioners are Beedl manufacturer The respondents were working under the petitioners as Gharkhata Beedl workers (Home^workers). After cessation of work when gratuity^was not paid to them they preferred claim before the Controlling Authority under the Act 1972 claiming payment of gratUity 3. The Controlling Authority by a detailed order allowed the claim of the respondents and directed the petitioners to make payment of gratuity amount with interest. The said orderuhas been affirmed in appeal by the appellate a uthority. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would make two fold submissions, firstly; that the claim under the Act, 1972, was barred by limitation and secondly; the respondents were Gharkhata Beedi workers and as such, they being not employees employed in the factory or establishment of the petitioners, are^{notcoveredunder} the Act, 1972.

¶48

The above issues raised in this batch of petitions have already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mls Manilal Dayalji & Co. v. Smt. Gayatri Bai (WPL No. 2684 of 2007 decided on 26.11.2013).

¶49

Coordinate Bench of this Court, whiie answering the above issues in WPL 2684 of 2007, has heid‘in para 6, 15 & 16 as under:

.. (l

“6. The Controlling Authority initially condoned the delay in moving the application by its order dated 22.02/1 999 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the R.L.C. (Central). The appellate authority remitted the matter for hearing the parties afresh and thereafter the Controlling Authority again passed an order condoning the delay in moving the applieation. Once the appellate authority has been clothed With power to condone the delay and the authority has exercised the discretion in the given set of facts after c‘ohsidering that the Act is a beneficial legislation, this Court would not interfere in the said exercise of discretion. Therefore the' fact that the application was barred by limitation has been duly dealt With and once the delay has been condoned, it cannot be said that the application was barred by limitation. 15, In M/s PM. Patel. (supra) it has also been held by the Supreme Court that the said provisions under the Act, 1966, applies not only to Industrial premises as detined under Section 2 (i) of the Act but also to an establishment as deltned under clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act, 1966. Thus, by a deemingmfiction, the home worker has been treated as part of establishment of a beedi manufacture. 16. In View of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s PM. Patel (supra), the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the gharkhata beedi worker who rolls

¶54

¶55

¶56

beedis in his/her home is not covered under the definition of employee, a_s provided tinder Section 2 (e)^oftheAct, 1972, is not acceptable.^"

¶57

¶58

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners^would further submit that principles^laid down in Mls PM. Patel and sons and others v. Union of India and others‘ is based on the definition of employee under Section 2(f) of the Employee's Provident Fund Act, which is not pari materia with the definition of employee under the Act,1972, and therefore, it is not applicable in the present Gases.

¶59

The contention as made by learned counsel for the petitioners is devoid of merit, inasmuch as, the Supreme Court in Patel's case has already held that the workers engaged by beedi manufacturers directly or through contractors for rolling beedi at home, as employees covered by the Act, 1972.

¶60

8‘‘ The Supreme Court in case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers’ Assn. v. Administrative Officer and othersz, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners, while dealing with the issue whether or not teachers come under the definition of employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972, has held : teachers who are mainly employed for impartingreducation, are not intended to be covered for extending gratuity benefits under the Act as the teachers do not answer the description of employees who are 'skiiled’, ‘semi ‘unskilled’. skilled’ or

¶61

Admittedly, in the cases in hand, the respondents are employees within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972, however, the order was assailed on the ground that there is no ,employee employer relationship between the Gharkhata Beedi workers and the employer, and therefore, the judgment relied a 1 (1986) l SCC 32 2 2004 (1) SCC 755

¶62

Copy of this order be placed on records of other connected. matters.

¶63

Sd/a Sanjay Agrawal Judge

¶64

Tiwan‘

M/S Dayalal Megji and Co. v. Appellat Uvthourity and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Dayalal Megji and Co. v. Appellat Uvthourity and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kush Kumar Gupta Vs Smt Rehana Riyazuddin

State Bank of India Vs Krishnakant Dubey and Ors.

Hemlal And Anr. Vs ShyamlalDead Through Smt. Shanti Bai And Ors.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs Municipal Corp.Raipur and Ors.

M/S Dayabhai Megji and Co. Vs Appellat Authourity and Ors.

M/S Daya Lal Gegji and Co. Vs Appellate Authourity and Others