Case: M.C.Chamaraju Vs. Hind Nippon Rural Industrial (P) Ltd

Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that according to the appellant, in September, 1984, he was appointed as Supervisor by Mr. V.K. Poddar, Managing Director of Agarwal Investments, Poddar Granites and Hind Nippon Co. Ltd. According to him, he worked as Supervisor in Poddar Mines at Sira upto 1990 and thereafter was transferred to other quarry. He worked at various places like Bellary, Sira and Chamaraya Nagar. He worked till February, 1993. From March, 1993, however, he was neither paid his salary nor served with any order of termination or dismissal. On September 27, 1993, the appellant addressed a letter asking the Management to settle his dues and also to pay gratuity under the Act. But it was not paid. He, therefore, approached the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bangalore by making an application under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972. The Controlling Authority, after hearing both the parties and perusing the materials placed before him, held that the appellant was entitled to gratuity. Accordingly, an order was passed on May 26, 2003 that the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs.16,875/- towards gratuity. Since the respondent-employer had not paid the amount of gratuity within 30 days of the leaving of services by the workman, the payment was ordered to be made with interest @ 10% p.a. from June 12, 1993 till the date ofaggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the respondent-Company filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act. The Appellate Authority vide his order dated December 20, 2004 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the ControllingManagement challenged the said order by filing a writ petition in the High Court but the learned Single Judge also dismissed the petition confirming the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act. The aggrieved Management challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in intra court appeal and as stated above, the appeal of the Management was allowed by the Division Bench setting aside all the orders and holding that the application filed by the workman was liable to beappellant has challenged the said order before thisJuly 10, 2006, notice was issued by this Court. Later on, the parties appeared and the matter was ordered to be posted for final hearing.

Court's reasoning:
are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case also, the Division Bench was not justified in setting aside the orders passed by the Authorities and confirmed by the learned Single Judge considering comparatively a small amount involved in the appeal. As already noted in the earlier part of the judgment, the appellant was held entitled to Rs.16,785/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. To us, therefore, even on that ground, the Division Bench should have refrained from quashing the orders.