Dismissed

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

Chhattisgarh HC17 Oct 2016WP/3951/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of five writ petitions challenging orders under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Relying on coordinate bench precedents, the Court ruled that limitation bars are removed upon condonation of delay by authorities and that beedi workers are employees covered by the Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed holding beedi home workers are employees; condonation of delay validates claims.

M/S Daya Lal Gegji and Co. Vs Appellate… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No. 3921 OF 2006 ,

¶4

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

¶5

,4 ---- Petitioner

¶6

.. Versus

¶7

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. Smt. Kalabai W/o Vishwjeet R/o Shanker Nagar Moti Chowk District Durg (CG)

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition No. 3949 OF 2006

¶10

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

¶11

-——- Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

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 a Commissioner (Central) Raipur (CG) 3. Khorbahrinbai W/o Late Shri Shyamlal R/o Village Singhori Rajim P.O. Baronda Rajim District Raipur (CG)

¶14

-----Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition No. 3950 OF 2006

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

Versus

¶19

---- Petitioner

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

Commissioner (Central)^Raipur (CG)

¶23

Shri Faguram S/o^{HinchhaR/ovillageBrahamnparaRajimPO.NawaparaRajim} District Raipur (CG)

¶24

-----Respondents

¶25

Writ Petition No. 3951^OF2006

¶26

M/s Dayalal Megji^{andCompanythrough} its Partner Hemendra Kumar^Dayabhai S/o Dayabhai aged 65 years^{R/oMalviyaRoadRaipur} (CG)

¶27

—--— Petitioner

¶28

Versus

¶29

Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur (MP) 2. Controlling Authority under the^{Paymentof’GratuityAct,} 1972/Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)^Raipur (CG) 3. Shri Banshilal Chouhan H/o Late Sushila R/o At& P.O.^{NawaparaRajim} District Raipur (CG)

¶30

.....Respondents

¶31

AND

¶32

Writ Petition No. 3952 OF 2006

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

—--- Petitioner Versus ¢

¶36

1A 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)

¶37

3,‘ Shri Mahadeo S/oDadusende R/o Shanker Nagar Ambedkar Chowk Durg (CG)

¶38

.....Respondents

¶39

For Petitioners For Respondents

¶40

Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate None

¶41

Hon‘b1e^ShriSan'a A rawal J.

¶42

Qrder^onBoard

¶43

17/10/2016

¶44

All the above^mentioned petitions invoive cammon facts and common questions of law and‘ as such, require consideration and di/sposai by the common order, leading^{caseofwhichW.P.No.3921of2006,} 2. Petitioners, in all the cases, have^{assailedthelegalityandvalidityofthe} orders passed by the Controlling Authority under^{thePaymentofGratuityAct,} 1972 (for short “the Act, 1972”) and the appellate order passed by the appellate authority under the Act, .1972. Petitioners are Beedi manufacturer. The respondents were working under the petitioners^{asGharkhataBeediworkers} (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.

¶45

The Controlling Authority by a detailed order allowed the claim of the respondents and directed the petitioners to make payment of gratuity amount r with interest. The said order has been affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority.

¶46

'L‘earned 4. counsel appearing for the petitioners would make two fold submissions, firstly; that the ciaim under^theAct, 1972, was barred by limitation and secondly; the respondents^{wereGharkhataBeediworkersandassuch,they} being not employees employed^{inthefactoryorestablishmentofthe} petitioners, are not covered under the^Act,1972.

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

Coordinate Bench of^{thisCourt,whileansweringtheaboveissues} in WPL No. 2684 of 2007, has^heldin para 6,^{15&16asunder:}

¶50

“6. The Controlling Aufhority initially condoned the delay in moving the application by its order dated 22.02.]999 against which the petitioner preferred^{anappealbeforethe} R.LAC. (Central); The appellate authority remitted the matter for hearing the parties afresh and thereafter the Controlling Authority^again passed^{anordercondoningthe} delay in moving the app/ioation, Once the appellate authority has been clothed^With power^{tocondonethedelay} and the authority has exercised^{thediscretioninthe} given set of facts after considering that^theActisa beneficial legislation, this Court would not^{interfereinthesaidexer-} cise of discretion. Therefore the'fact that the application was barred by limitation has been duly dealt^withandonce the delay has been condoned, it cannot be said that the application was barred by^limitation. 15V 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 defined under Section 2 (1)^{oftheActbutalsotoanestablishment} as defined under clause (h) of Section 2^oftheAct, 1966. Thus; by a deeming fiction, the home worker has been treated as part of establishment^{ofabeedimanufacture.} 16. In view of the judgment of the Supreme^Courtin M/s PM. Patel (supra), the argument raised by^{learnedcounsel} for the petitioner that the gharkhata beedi worker^whorolls

¶51

¶52

beedis in his/her home is not covered under the definition of employee, as provided under Section 2 (e) of the Act, 1972, is not acceptable.” L‘ «u

¶53

¶54

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that principles laid down in Mls P.M. Patel and sons and others v. Union of lndia and others1 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 cases.

¶55

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.

¶56

t “t

¶57

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, whilemdealing 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 imparting education, 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 ‘skilled‘, ‘semi ‘unskilled’. skilled’ or

¶58

Admittedly, in the cases in hand, the respondents are employees within the^meaningof 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 E‘ 1 (1986) 1 scc 32 2 2004 (1) SCC 755

¶59

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

¶60

N J SdlSanjay Agrawal f Judge

¶61

Tiwari

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Daya Lal Gegji and Co. v. Appellate Authourity 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 Dayalal Megji and Co. Vs Appellat Uvthourity and Others