Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Group-D employee in a government school, joined service on 18-11-1971 and retired on 31-05-2013 after 42 years of service. He was initially engaged on daily wages and regularized only from 01-01-1990. On retirement, he was paid gratuity only for the period after regularization, denying him gratuity for the 19 years of daily wage service. He approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which, by order dated 05-03-2015, determined arrears of gratuity at Rs.2,40,449 along with interest, relying on government orders and judicial precedents that daily wage employees are entitled to gratuity for the entire service period. Despite this determination, the authorities did not pay. The Labour Officer communicated to the Deputy Commissioner to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue, but no action was taken. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking a mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner to initiate recovery proceedings against the concerned officials. The respondents contended that the petitioner was a daily wage employee and that the issue of gratuity for daily wage service was pending before the Supreme Court, so payment should await the decision. The High Court held that the Controlling Authority's order is final and binding, and the mere pendency of a case before the Apex Court does not constitute a valid ground to withhold payment. The Court allowed the petition and directed the Deputy Commissioner to recover the gratuity arrears with interest from respondents 2 and 4. The decision reinforces the principle that gratuity is payable for the entire period of service, regardless of the nature of appointment, and that statutory dues determined by competent authority must be enforced without delay.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Gratuity - Entitlement to Gratuity for Daily Wage Service - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Section 4 - The petitioner, a Group-D employee in a government school, served for 42 years, of which 19 years were as a daily wage employee before regularization. The Controlling Authority determined arrears of gratuity at Rs.2,40,449, relying on government orders and judgments. Held that an employee is entitled to gratuity for the entire period of service, including daily wage service. (Paras 7-8) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus for Recovery of Gratuity - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 - The Controlling Authority's order determined the gratuity payable, but the respondents refused to pay, citing pendency of a case before the Supreme Court on daily wage gratuity. The High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. Held that pendency of a case does not bar enforcement of a determined liability; mandamus was issued to enforce the order. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to gratuity for the period of service rendered as a daily wage employee prior to regularization, and whether directions should be issued to recover the arrears despite pendency of a case before the Supreme Court.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Deputy Commissioner to initiate proceedings to recover gratuity arrears of Rs.2,40,449 along with interest from respondents 2 and 4. The court held that the Controlling Authority's order is binding and pendency of a case before the Supreme Court does not bar enforcement.
Law Points
- Entitlement to gratuity for daily wage period
- Payment of Gratuity Act
- 1972
- recovery of gratuity as arrears of land revenue
- mandamus under Article 226
