Case: Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills Ltd. Etc Vs. Mahendra Prataprai Buch Etc

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 Civil Appeal No. 1088 of 1976 (Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills Limited-appellant v. Shri Mahendra Prataprai Buch-respondent) the respondent ceased to be an employee on attaining the age of superannuation after completing 19 years of service. The appellant company 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 a month of 30 days or fixing his daily wages by dividing his monthly wages by 30. The Controlling Authority under the Act accepted the respondents contention and his decision was affirmed by the appellate authority. A division bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad summarily dismissed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution made by the appellant company challenging the decision of the authorities under the Act. The learned Judges however gave reasons in support of the order made. The appeal before us is by specialCivil Appeal 480 of 1977 (The Maharana Mills Limited-appellant v. Shri Gopal Das Ladhabhai Kakkad respondent) the respondent resigned his job after a little over 22 years of service. The appellant company paid hi m 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 the appellant company challenging the decision of the authorities under the Act. This appeal however is brought on a certificate granted by the High Court.

Reasoning:
The view 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 employees 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.Incidentally, to indicate that treating monthly wages as wages for 26 working days is not anything unique or unknown, we may refer to a passage from the judgment of this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. v. Workmen and other etc.(1) which disposed of several appeals arising out of an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. In the award schemes were framed relating to the payment ofthe 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 or 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 under section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.