Case: Shaikh Kaisar &amp; Others Vs. Forbes Gokak Limited &amp; Others

3. Appellants areof respondent No. 1. They have accepted voluntary retirement under available scheme and there is no dispute that they are entitled to gratuity. It is also an admitted position that employerrespondent No. 1 has paid the amount of gratuity to the employees as payable according to the notion of the employer. The employees took the dispute to the Controlling Authority under section 74 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 because it was their grievance that certain amounts which attracted the definition of "wages" as contained in section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 were excluded by the employer by giving different nomenclature to those amounts and thus they are paid gratuity less than what they are entitled to.The dispute was rejected by the Controlling Authority. The employees took up the matter in an appeal before the appellate authority (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which authority was pleased to uphold the contention of the employees vide his order datedFeeling aggrieved by the same, the employer approached this court by way of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India numbered as writ petition No. 7149/2006.4. Admittedly, all the employees had filed different claims before the Controlling Authority as also different appeals before the appellate authority. The employer filed only single writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the appellate authority which had disposed of all the appeals of 42 employees by common judgment and order. An objection was raised to the maintainability of writ petition thereby challenging the decision in appeals in favour of 42 employees, although by common judgment and order by the appellate authority. The learned Single Judge was pleased to turn down the objection, issue Rule and also grant of interim stay in terms of prayer clause (D) in the writ petition.Feeling aggrieved by the finding that one writ petition as against all 42 employees was maintainable and also grant of interim stay, the employees have approached this court, by

Reasoning:
On going through the observations as borrowed from various judicial pronouncements by the learned Single Judge, in the matter of Management, E.I.D. Parry India Ltd. (supra) and the observations of the Honble Supreme Court relied upon by learned advocate Shri Singh, it can be seen that the writ petition cannot be treated at par either with civil suit or with criminal case and rules of joinder,er as applicable to those types of litigations are not necessarily applicable to a writ petition. However, a common writ petition by several petitioners or a common writ petition against several respondents may not be maintainable or rather may not be desirable when there are different causes of action pertaining to each individual petitioner or respondent, when there are different sets of facts and when there are different remedies sought. Otherwise, as observed in paragraph No. 14 of the judgment in the case of Management, E.I.D. Parry India Ltd. (supra), there need not be a hard and fast rule that writ petition by or against several petitioners/ respondents is notthus appears that the dispute is within limited compass and learned Single Judge has issued Rule only for the purpose of determination as to whether payments of amounts under various heads which are given different names (not "Pay" and "Dearness Allowances") such as Additional Reward Scheme (ARS) and Other Reward Scheme (ORS), fall within the definition of "wages" as under section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. No doubt, number of years of service may be different in case of different employees and the last pay drawn may also be different in case of different employees. Once the High Court records its finding as to whether these amounts titled as "ARS" and "ORS" are covered by the definition "wages" as under section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, what remains is the ministerial calculations for the purpose of determining the amount payable to each individual employee. On this count, it cannot be said that there are different causes of action. It may not be incorrect to say that even if the Company files 42 writ petitions challenging the decision in favour of 42 employees (by common judgment and order), all the writ petitions would be clubbed together, heard together and decided by common judgment and order giving interpretation of the court of the definition of "wages" as under section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.7. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we find no hesitation to concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge so far as challenge to the maintainability of single writ petition as against all 42 employees although they had come with 42 different complaints and appeals.8. As a second limb of argument, learned advocate Shri Singh, for the appellants expressed grievance because learned Single Judge while issuing Rule in favour of the Company has also granted stay to the order impugned in the writ petition. Consequently, the Company is not required to deposit the amount found due to the employees by the appellate authority.The proviso relates to fact circumstances with the Controlling Authority deciding the applications in favour of the employees and the employer is required to deposit the amount before the appellate authority. Such is not the case before us. On reference to section 74(a), it is evident that employer is required to deposit with the Controlling Authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him as gratuity, as and when any dispute as to the payment of gratuity payable to the employees arises. We are informed that the employer has already paid the amount which, according to him, is due to the employees. Therefore, we feel that section 77 proviso second cannot render any assistance to present appellants. We are, therefore, not inclined to consider second prayer of learned advocate Shri Singh favourably.9. Learned Single Judge while granting interim relief has not discussed the reasons at length, but the reasons are not impossible to be visualized. Admittedly, the Company is functioning well and it is not a Company which has gone in liquidation or which is closed down. The amount if found due after the decision of the High Court can be directed to be paid within the reasonable time. Employees are already paid some amount which employer admits to be due to the employees by way of gratuity. We, therefore, do not find necessity to interfere with grant of stay during pendency of writ petition.10. At this stage, we have inquired learned advocate Shri Dankh as to whether he has paid requisite court fee taking into consideration that he has narrated cause of action pertaining to 42 respondents together when Shri Dankh has narrated that the employer Company would be willing and shall be depositing the requisite court fee as required for 42 writ petitions in the matter before learned Single Judge. We accept the assurance and believe the learned advocate for the Company to comply the same within reasonable time.