Mangt.Of Sri Ramnarayan Mills Ltd. vs Sec.Coimbatore Dist.Text.Work.Union ...

2. Facts   of   the   case   lie   in   a   narrow   compass. They,   however,   need   mention   in   brief  infra  to appreciate the short controversy.

7. The appellant felt aggrieved of the order of the Labour Court and filed the writ petition in the High Court   at   Madras   questioning   therein   the   legality and   correctness   of the  order  of  the  Labour  Court. By   order   dated   19.07.2002,   the   learned   Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition which gave rise  to  filing of the intra court appeal by the appellant   (employer)   before   the   Division   Bench   of the High Court.

8. By   impugned   order,   the   Division   Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Labour   Court   and   Single   Judge.   It   is   against   this order;   the   appellant   (employer)   has   felt   aggrieved and filed the present special leave to appeal in this Court.

Consequently,   for   that   particular   year,   an employee will not get gratuity inspite of the fact   that   he   had   worked   for   12   calendar months.   Now, only 240 days shall be taken into   account   and   not   240   days   attendance shall be taken into account.   As such, if the modification   is   allowed,   the   future   right   of the   employee   to   get   a   gratuity   for   a particular year will get affected.   Apart from this,   if   an   employee,   for   certain   reasons beyond  his  control,  was  forced  to  be  absent even for a day, he can be imposed with the punishment   of   break   in   service   which   will have   consequence   on   his   gratuity.     That apart, if an employee has to be punished for the   absent   as   referred   above.     The punishment   of   either   censure,   reduction   in rank   or   payment   cut   etc.   may   be   imposed and continuity of service of that employee is not disrupted.   If the appellant is permitted to include break in service also as one of the punishment,   even   for  one  day  or  half  a  day absent from duty in a year of 12 months, will give   power   to   the   appellant   to   impose   the 7 punishment of break in continuity of service in   order   to   deprive   the   employee’s   right   to get the gratuity for that particular year.   In fact, this proposed amendment is against the welfare   of   the   employee   and   as   rightly   held by the learned Single Judge, besides, this can be   exercised   in   an   arbitrary   manner, consequently,   the   employees   will   be penalized.  That apart, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, on the appreciation of the   entire   materials,   the   Labour   Court   has arrived   at   a   factual   conclusion   that   the amendment sought for, namely, inclusion of break in service in Clause 16 is unreasonable and it would be possible for the Management to   act   arbitrarily.     That   apart,   by   including the   break   in   service   as   one   of   the punishment,   in   fact,   what   the   appellant intends to do is only to get an opportunity to impose   punishment   which   will   have   an impact in the gratuity of the employee of the concerned year.”

12.      The   Division   Bench,   in   our   considered opinion, rightly concluded that a “break in service” cannot   be   allowed   as   a   ground   by   way   of punishment   in   Clause   16   of   the   Chapter   of Punishment   in   Certified   Standing   Orders   for   the following reasons:

13. Firstly,   the   existing   grounds   enumerated   in Clause   16   by   way   of   punishment   are   sufficient   to take   care   of   any   misconduct   committed   by   any employee and there appears no reason to introduce one   more   new   ground   in   the   existing   grounds specified   in   Clause   16   for   imposing   a   new punishment.

14.   Secondly,   the   proposed   ground,   if   allowed, would likely to be misused by the employer against its employees for their own benefit and detrimental to the employees’ interest.

15. Thirdly, it would enable the employer to take action   against   its   employees   even   in   a   situation where an employee is found absent even for a day and   such   absence   will   be   treated   as   “break   in service”   under   the   Certified   Standing   Orders   and also   under   the   Payment   of   Gratuity   Act.   It   will, therefore,   be   in   conflict   with   the   definition   of   the 9 expression   “continuous   service”   defined   under   the Payment of Gratuity Act which gives different modes of   calculation   for   determining   the   continuous service for payment of gratuity amount.

16. Fourthly,   such   ground   will,   therefore,   defeat the very object of the Payment of Gratuity Act which is a beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of the employees and lastly, it is neither bona fide nor reasonable and nor required and hence it cannot be allowed.

17. In   our   opinion,   we   find   no   good   ground   to differ   with   the   reasoning   assigned   by   the   Division Bench mentioned above for rejecting the application made by the appellant (employer) for adding, “break in service” as a new ground for punishment in the Certified Standing Orders.  The reasons given by the Division Bench, in our view, deserve to be upheld. 10

18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this appeal.  The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.

………………………………..J  (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)             …..………………………………J.      (INDU MALHOTRA) New Delhi, November 02, 2018 11