IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17594 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CANARA BANK CIRCLE OFFICE CHALAPURAM, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES, MANAGEMENT SECTION, CIRCLE OFFICE, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SMT. RUGMINI AMMA RAJASREE, ITHUPARAMBIL HOUSE P.O., THALAKULATHUR, CALICUT-17. 2. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUTITY ACT, 1972, AND REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), O/O THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), KENDRIYA SHRAMSADAN, OLIMUKAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, O/O THE COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), KENDRIYA SHARMSADAN, OLIMUKAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No.17594 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The first respondent who was employed as a sweeper from 1.10.85 till May 2007 filed an application before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act as per Ext P1 for a direction to the Bank to pay her Gratuity. In Ext.P2 objection filed by the Dy. General Manager, it was contended that the first respondent was engaged on consolidated wages from 1.10.85 to 6.5.2005 and from 6.5.05 the consolidated wages was enhanced to 1/3rd scale wages. The Bank also denied the employer-employee relationship pointing out that the complainant was not alloted with any staff number and she was not signing the attendance register. 2. By Ext. P3, the controlling authority found that though the Bank had taken up a contention that the services of the complainant was not continuous, they have failed to substantiate the same with any corroborative evidence. It was also found that even a casual employee is entitled for WPC.No.17594 OF 2009 : 2 : payment of Gratuity. The view was affirmed by the appellate authority as evidenced by Ext.P5 which is challenged in this writ petition. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I take note of the fact that even according to the Bank, the first respondent was engaged as a sweeper for a long period from 1985 to 2005. True, she may not have been on the Rolls of the Bank. Assuming that the first respondent was not a permanent employee, the fact that 23 years of service had been rendered by her as a Sweeper cannot be ignored and was rightly noted by the authorities. The further fact that her wages were determined at least with effect from 2005, with reference to a scale of pay adopted in the Bank is also significant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the burden of proving employer-employee relationship was wrongly cast on the Bank. 6. I am not in a position to agree. Here is a case where the complainant was a lowly paid employee, a sweeper. WPC.No.17594 OF 2009 : 3 : Admittedly she was discharging service as a sweeper for more than two decades. She was being paid a consolidated amount every month. In view of this fact the authorities below had rightly come to the conclusion that the first respondent is entitled to gratuity. 7. I am not inclined to accept the challenge, mounted by a Nationalized Bank, to the orders passed by statutory authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act in favour of a lowly paid employee like the first respondent. But I make it clear that the orders impugned in this writ petition shall not be treated as a precedent against the Bank. I further make it clear that I am declining jurisdiction only in the facts and circumstances of the case. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) jma