Case: SHRI DIGVIJAY WOOLLEN MILLS LTD Vs. MAHENDRA PRATAPRAI BUCH.. MAHARANA MILLS LTD. v. GOPALDAS LADHABHAI KAKKAD

2. It is not necessary to state the facts in any great detail. In both cases the respondent was a monthly rated employee and the appellant, a public limited company, was his employer. In C.A. No. 1088 of 1976 (Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills Ltd., appellant v. Shri Mahendra Prataprai Buch, respondent), the respondent ceased to be an employee on attaining the age of supreannuation after completing 19 years of service. They calculated the amount of gratuity payable to him on the basis that fifteen days wages was half of the monthly wages last drawn by him. The respondent demanded an additional sum as gratuity on the ground that his monthly wages should be taken as what he got for 26 working days, his daily wages should be ascertained on that basis and his fifteen days wages worked out, accordingly, not by just taking half of his wages for month of 30 days or fixing his daily wages by dividing his monthly wages by 303. The Controlling Authority under the Act accepted the respondents contention and his decision was affirmed by the appellate authority. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court as Ahmedabad summarily dismissed the petition u/Art. 227 of the Constitution made by the appellant company challenging the decision of the authorities under the Act. The ld. Judges however, gave reasons in support of the order made. The appeal before us is by special leave4. In C.A. No. 480 of 1977 Maharana Mills Ltd. (appellant) v. Shri Gopaldas Ladhabhai Kakkad, (respondent), the respondent resigned his job after a little over 22 years of service. They paid him gratuity calculating his daily wages by dividing his monthly wages by 30 and computing fifteen days wages on that basis. Here also, the respondent claimed an additional sum as gratuity and the basis of the claim was the same as in the other appeal. The Controlling Authority accepted the respondents contention and the appellate authority affirmed his decision following the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in the other case. In this case also, the Gujarat High Court summarily rejected the petition made by they challenging the decision of the authorities under the Act. This appeal, however, is brought on a certificate granted by the High CourtIn dismissing the petition in Digvijay Woollen Mills case, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed as follows :"The employee is to be paid gratuity for every completed year of service and the only yardstick provided is that the rate of wages last drawn by an employee concerned shall be utilised and on that basis, at the rate of fifteen days wages for each year of service, the gratuity would be computed. In any factory it is well known that an employee never works and could never be permitted to work for all the 30 days of the month. He gets 52 Sundays in a year as paid holidays and, therefore, the basic wages and dearness allowance are always fixed by taking into consideration this economic reality .... A worker gets full months wages not by remaining on duty for all the 30 days with a month but by remaining on work and doing duty for only 26 days. The other extra holidays may make some marginal variation into 25 working days, but all wage boards and wage fixing authorities or tribunals in the country have always followed this pattern of fixation of wages by this method of 26 working day."

Reasoning:
5. The views expressed in the extract quoted above appears to be legitimate and reasonable. Ordinarily, of course, a month is understood to mean 30 days, but the manner of calculating gratuity payable under the Act to the employee who work for 26 days a month followed by the Gujarat High Court, cannot be called perverse. It is not necessary to consider whether another view is possible.The High Court summarily dismissed the petition of the appellant in both the appeals before us and upheld the decision of the authorities under the Act. We are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the High Court because it seems to us that the view taken by the authorities is not in any way unreasonable or perverse. Incidentlly, to indicate the treating monthly wages as wages for 26 working days is not anything unique or unknown,6. In the view we take, we do not find it necessary to consider the decisions of some of the High Courts cited at the bar taking one view of the other on the question involved in these appeals, also the decisions based on some provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and other statutes which were relied on by either side are in our opinion not relevant on the question of computation of fifteen days wages u/s 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.