The Management of Belvidere Estate v. The Additional commissioner of Labour

Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "P.G. Act"), in P.G. Appeal No. 28 of 2020. By the said order, the Appellate Authority confirmed the earlier order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the 2^ndrespondent, the Controlling Authority, in P.G. Case No. 568 of 2017, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.88,733/- as gratuity to the 3^rdrespondent. The writ petition was admitted on 22.09.2021, and on the same day, an interim injunction was granted in the connected W.M.P. Though the 3^rdrespondent was duly served on 08.10.2021, she has not entered appearance either in person or through counsel.

3.Without taking note of the subsequent developments, this Court, when the matter was listed on 05.11.2024, directed that it be placed before the Lok Adalat scheduled for 14.12.2024. As no settlement was arrived at, the matter was returned to this Court for adjudication on merits. The records reveal that the 3^rdrespondent claimed to have worked as a permanent employee in the petitioner's estate for a period of 26 years, during which she had completed more than 240 days of work each year. Due to health issues, particularly heart- related ailments for which she was undergoing treatment, she tendered her resignation by letter dated 07.04.2017. Subsequently, by letter dated 19.06.2017, she submitted a claim seeking payment of gratuity for her past

3/13

service. 4.As there was no response to her representation, the 3^rdrespondent filed an application for gratuity before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, through her letter dated 19.06.2017. Along with the application, she also submitted a request to condone the alleged delay. Upon receipt of notice from the 2^ndrespondent, the petitioner-management filed a reply dated 09.12.2017, disputing both the claimant's service and the applicability of the Act to her case. The application was taken on file as P.G. Case No. 568 of 2017. During the enquiry, the 3^rdrespondent examined herself as PW1 and marked ten documents in support of her claim, which were exhibited as Exs. P1 to P10. On behalf of the petitioner-management, R. Nandagopal was examined as RW1, and ten documents were produced and marked as Exs. R1 to R10.

5.In the order dated 08.04.2019, the Controlling Authority found that the petitioner-management had failed to respond to the 3^rdrespondent's claim for gratuity. It was further observed that the muster roll records produced by the management appeared to have been fabricated solely for the purpose of the

4/13

present proceedings. Accepting the version of the 3^rdrespondent, the authority held that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act were applicable and that the third respondent had completed 26 years of continuous service. Accordingly, the authority directed payment of gratuity along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

6.The petitioner-management deposited the entire gratuity amount of Rs.88,733/- with the 2^ndrespondent and filed an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act by way of their appeal dated 23.11.2019. The appeal was taken on file as P.G. Appeal No. 28 of 2020, and notice was issued to the 3^rdrespondent. The Appellate Authority found that more than eleven workers were employed in the estate and, since the Employees' Provident Funds Act was applicable to them, the Payment of Gratuity Act would also ipso factor apply to them. The authority also took note of a previous instance where another worker, one Kala, had successfully claimed gratuity, which was granted by the competent authority. Further, the authority referred to the admission made during the cross-examination of RW1, wherein the witness conceded that the Provident Fund Act was applicable and that deductions had been made from

5/13

the commencement of the estate's operations. With regard to the duration of the 3^rdrespondent's service, the Appellate Authority noted that the petitioner- management had failed to produce any documentary evidence to rebut the claim, and accordingly accepted the respondent's version. In light of these findings, the Appellate Authority affirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-management. 7.The petitioner contended that the burden of proving both the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act to the estate and the actual length of service rendered by the 3^rdrespondent rested on the workman, and in the absence of such proof, the impugned orders were liable to be set aside. However, with respect to the applicability of the Act, RW1 himself admitted during cross-examination that the Employees' Provident Funds Act was being implemented in the estate. Since the EPF Act applies only where 20 or more employees are engaged, this admission sufficiently establishes the applicability of the Gratuity Act as well. In this regard, a Division Bench of this Court in

The Management of S.I.E.T. Women's College v. Mohamed Ibrahim,

6/13

reported in 1992 (1) LLJ 91 (Mad), held as follows:—

"There is no substance in this contention in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullunder and others (1981-I-LLJ-345). In that case it was held that Section 1(3)(b) of the Act applied to every establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to an establishment in a State and it was not necessary that the law should be one relating to shops and establishments. The law is expounded thus (p. 355) :

".... Section 1(3)(b) speaks of "any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State". There can be no dispute that the Payment of Wages Act is in force in the State of Punjab. Then, it is submitted, the Payments of Wages Act is not a law in relation to "shops and establishments". As to that the Payment of Wages Act is a statute which, while it may not relate to shops, relates to a class of establishments that is to say, industrial establishments. But, it is contended, the law referred to under S. 1(3)(b) must be a law which relates to both shops and establishments such as the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958. It is difficult to accept that contention because there is no warrant for so limiting the meaning of the expression "law" in the S. 1(3)(b) . The expression is comprehensive in its scope, and can mean a law in relation to shops as well as separately, a law in relation to establishments, or a law in relation to shops and commercial establishments and a law in relation to non-commercial establishments. Had S. 1(3)(b) intended to refer to a single enactment, surely the appellant would have been able to point to such a statute, that is to say, a statute relating to shops and establishments, both commercial and non-commercial. The Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act does not relate to all kinds of establishments. Besides shops, it relates to commercial establishments alone. Had the intention of Parliament been, when

7/13

enacting S. 1(3)(b) , to refer to a law relating to commercial establishments, it would not have left the expression

"establishments" unqualified. We have carefully examined the various provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and we are unable to discern any reason for giving the limited meaning to S. 1(3)(b) urged before us on behalf of the appellant. Section 1(3)(b) applies to every establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to establishment in a State. Such an establishment would include an industrial establishment within the meaning of S. 2(ii)(g) of the Payment of Wages Act ....

5.The Employees 'Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1958 is applicable to the petitioner as all educational institutions have been notified as 'establishments' within the meaning of the said Act by the Central Government under Section 1(3)(b) of that Act, (Vide Notification S.O. 986 dated February 19, 1982)."

6.

Therefore, in view of the applicability of the Provident Fund Act, the coverage of the establishment under the Payment of Gratuity Act necessarily follows, and the finding of the Appellate Authority in this regard is legally sound and sustainable.

8.It is evident that the 3^rd respondent was unable to properly sign the application form, and despite service of notice, she has not entered appearance

8/13

before this Court. The authorities have found that the muster roll produced by the petitioner-management appeared to have been fabricated solely for the purpose of the proceedings and could not be relied upon. Notably, in an earlier instance when another woman worker, Kala, had filed a gratuity claim, the management failed to produce any relevant documents, and in the present case as well, they admitted that Kala's name was not reflected in the records produced. Although the 3^rdrespondent had specifically requested production of the statutory registers before the Controlling Authority, the petitioner failed to comply with the same.

9.During cross-examination, RW1 Nandagopal made the following admissions:

"ehd; jhf;fy; bra;j Mtz';fs; midj;jpYk; v!;nll;oy; Fc&hy;Fkhu; vd;w gzpahsu;jhd; vGjpapUf;fpwhu; Mdhy; mtuJ ifbahg;gk; ,y;iy vd;why; rup/ ehd; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s Mtz';fs; midj;Jk; M';fpyj;jpy;jhd; vGjg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rup/ rl;lg;go jkpHpy; vGjg;gl;oUf;f ntz;Lk;/ Mdhy; Mtz';fspy; mJnghy; vGjg;gltpy;iy vd;why; rup/ nuiff;F mUfpy; nuif itj;jtu; ahu; vd;w tpguk; ,y;iy vd;why; rup/ nuif itj;jtu;fspd; bgau; nuif mUfpy; ,y;iy vd;why; rup/ kDjhuu; Twpa epUthfj;jpdu; kDjhuUf;F tH';fpa rk;gsr; rPl;od; mof;fl;il v!;nll;oy; ,Uf;Fk; vd;why; rup/ Mdhy; kDjhuu; nfhupa[k; mij jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; rup/ v!;nll;oy; guhkupf;fg;gl;L tUk; 1997 Kjy; 2017 tiuf;fhd nghd!; gjpntLfs;. yPt[ rk;gs gjpntL. njrpa kw;Wk; gz;oif tpLKiw rk;gs gjpntL ,itfis jhf;fy; bra;jhy; kDjhuu; tUlj;jpy; vt;tst[ ehl;fs; gzpahw;wpdhu; vd;w tptuk;

9/13

bjupatUk; vd;why; rup/ mitfis kDjhuu; nfhupa[k; ,k;kd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; rup/ v!;nll;oy; bjhHpyhsu;fSf;F tH';fpa tPLfs; cs;sJ vd;why; rup/ v!;nll;oy; ntiy bra;a[k; bjhHpyhsu;fs; bgau; cs;sJ vd;why; rup/ btspapypUe;J tUk; bjhHpyhsu;fs; bgaUk; cs;sJ vd;why; rup/ mitfis guhkupf;f ntz;oa mtrpak; ,y;iy/ kDjhuu; nfhupa[s;s rl;lg;goahd Mtz';fis vjpu;kDjhuu; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; rup/ 10.Upon further questioning by the authority, RW1 provided the following response:—

"njhl;l epWtd Ma;thsu; Ma;t[f;F te;Js;shu;fsh vd;why; te;jhu;fs;/ 2000 Kjy; 2017 tiu guhkupf;fg;gl;l k!;lu; nuhy; fk; nt$!; up$p!;l;lupy; njhl;l epWtd Ma;thsu; ifbahg;gk; ,y;iy vd;why; rup/"

11.In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is held to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. In light of the dismissal of the writ petition, the 3^rdrespondent is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited with the 2^ndrespondent. As the 3^rd respondent has not appeared despite due notice, a copy of this order shall be dispatched to her free of cost. The 1^stand 2^ndrespondents are further directed to instruct the Inspector of Plantations, Salem, to locate the present address of the 3^rdrespondent and personally serve a copy of this order on her.

10/13

29.05.2025

ay NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order To

1.The Additional Commissioner of Labour Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Coimbatore.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (with records)

3. Tmt. V.Rajavalli, (FREE COPY) w/o. Vellaiyan,

Mundagampadi,

Ondikkadai Post,

Yercaud - 636 602.

11/13

DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J

ay

12/13

Pre-Delivery Judgment made in W.P. No. 20270 of 2021 and

W.M.P. No. 21526 of 2021

29.05.2025

13/13