Partly allowed

The Chief Librarian v. Smt Yashodha Bhalavanth Patil

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2012WP/15493/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an Assistant Labour Commissioner's order awarding gratuity to a daily wage worker. The Court held that implied employment existed for the period covered, establishing an employer-employee relationship sufficient for maintenance under the Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; respondent entitled to gratuity amount and interest as per Controlling Authority order.

The Chief Librarian Vs Smt Yashodha… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

Dated this the 5^th day of September, 2012

¶4

Before

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶6

Writ Petition 1 5493 / 2006 (S R )

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chief Librarian City Central Library Deputy Commissioner Compound Belgaum

¶9

Petitioner

¶10

(By Smt Megha C Kolekar, GP)

¶11

And :

¶12

Smt Yashodha Bhalavanth Patil EWS 23, Ashoknagar, Belgaum

¶13

Respondent

¶14

(By Sri Jagadish R Patil, Adv.)

¶15

The Petition is filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order passed by the Asst. Labour Commr. & Controlling Authority, Belgaum on 20.2.2006 – annexure D.

¶16

The Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is before this Court challenging the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶20

The respondent filed an application under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act before the competent authority viz., the Assistant Labour Commissioner. By the order at annexure D, an amount of Rs.20,861/- with 10% interest has been ordered. The same has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent was working on daily wage basis and there is no relationship of employer and employee and neither an appointment order has been issued nor there is any termination. The respondent voluntarily left the job due to old age. As such, question of entertaining the application under the provisions of the Gratuity Act, 1972 does not arise. The jurisdiction of the respondent authority would arise only in the event of default that too on superannuation and in the absence of any such order of superannuation or retirement, the jurisdiction assumed by the authority is without any basis.

¶21

¶22

Accordingly, it is submitted , the impugned order has to be set aside.

¶23

Per contra, counsel representing the respondent submitted that in the statement of objections filed before the Controlling Authority, while denying the contention of the respondent that she worked for seventeen years, they have stated that the respondent worked as a daily wager from 1.4.1989 to 31.5.2004 i.e., nearly fifteen years and as per S.2(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the nature of work entrusted and payment of salary to her by the government is in recognition of the services rendered as remuneration either on daily wage basis or otherwise and as such, rightly entertaining the application, the Controlling Authority passed an order which does not call for interference.

¶24

In view of the objections filed before the Controlling Authority stating that the workman worked from 1989 up to 2004 as a daily wager and from time to time, there was

¶25

¶26

enhancement of salary, though there was no such appointment order issued as indicated under S.2(G), there is implied employment as such, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the application filed is maintainable. Having taken into consideration the period of service rendered, amount has been determined after inquiry based on the written statement of the Government. Though on daily wage basis when the respondent was employed to do manual work of sweeping and though she worked for 14 – 15 years, it is beyond 240 days. Necessarily, it has to be treated that there exists a relationship of employer and employee.

¶27

In the circumstances, after giving opportunity to the petitioner to have their say in the matter, based on the contention of the petitioner themselves, referring to S.7(2) and (3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Controlling Authority has settled the matter. Of course, if the amount is calculated for fifteen years in stead of seventeen years, it would be little lesser. Thus, the respondent would be entitled for Rs.18,860/-

¶28

¶29

at the most. Government cannot gain say that the Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the issue. As ordered by the Controlling Authority, respondent is entitled for interest.

¶30

With the above observation, petition is allowed in part

¶31

Sd/- Judge

¶32

The Chief Librarian v. Smt Yashodha Bhalavanth Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Librarian v. Smt Yashodha Bhalavanth Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mallikarjun Siddanagouda Goudar Vs the Divisional Controller

Dr. A.B. Khot Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of Veerashaiva College Vs Kumari C Padmakshi

Wajidatabassum D/O.Bashirahemad Sayyed Vs the Secretary, Primary and Secondary Edu Govt of

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Bellada Bagewadi Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Hescom Corporate Office