IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 720 of 2007 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.16362/2000 Dated 19/01/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN W.P.(C): ------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE CANNING INDUSTRIES COCHIN LTD., FACTORY AND REGD, OFFICE, CAICO ROAD, TRICHUR 680 006, REPRESENTED B ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE CANNINGINDUSTRIES COCHIN LTD., FACTORY AND REGD. OFFICE, CAICO ROAD, TRICHUR 680 006. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.JOSHI VARGHESE SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN W.P(C): --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.P.THRESSIAMMA, W/O.LONAPPAN ARANGASSERI HOUSE, ANCHERI, VALARKAVU,ANCHERI P.O. THRISSUR. 2. K.L.MARY, W/O.LONAPPAN, KOLANGARA HOUSE, MAVELI NAGAR, KURIACHIRA P.O. THRISSUR. 3. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRAUITY ACT(REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER), ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT (DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER), THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY, Ag.CJ & P.BHAVADASAN, J. =========================== W.A.No.720 of 2007 =============================== Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009. J U D G M E N T Koshy, Ag.CJ. Writ petitioners are employees in the 3rd respondent's company. They retired from service. Contention of the petitioners is that they were paid only 7 days wages for every completed year of service under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Appellants' contention is that the company was only a seasonal establishment. The word 'Seasonal Establishment' is not defined under Payment of Gratuity Act. Section 4 is the charging section of Payment of Gratuity Act. It provides that for every completed year of service the employer shall pay gratuity at the rate of 15 days wages based on the last drawn wages of the employee. Second proviso says that, for an employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is not so employed throughout the year, the employer shall pay the gratuity at W.A.No.720 of 2007 2 the rate of seven days' wages for each season. Second proviso is applicable only for a seasonal establishment. Once it was found that in a seasonal establishment employees who are working throughout the year are entitled to 15 days' wages and those employees who are working for a season will get only 7 days' wages as gratuity. Here, in the absence of a definition of 'seasonal establishment', we have to take a general meaning. Admittedly, the factory of the appellants company runs throughout the year. Even the workers accepting the contention of the appellants, factory works throughout the year but workers are working in rotation basis during the off season period. Since the factory is working throughout the year and employees are working in the factory throughout the year though on rotation basis during non-season, it cannot be stated that it is a seasonal establishment for the purpose of payment of gratuity. We are of the view that gratuity being a welfare W.A.No.720 of 2007 3 activity for the workers, a liberal beneficial interpretation has to be adopted in favour of the persons in whose favour Act is enacted. Apart from the above, the employees are fighting for about a decade and the financial liability as far as these two writ petitioners are concerned are only very limited. In the above circumstances, we dismiss the appeal. J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. bkn/-