CASE TITLE – Controller Government Printing Press And Stationary v. Nafeesa Bano & Ors.
CASE NUMBER – WRIT PETITION No. 3507 of 2024
DATED ON – 26th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
QUORUM – Hon’ble Shri Justice Vivek Agarwal
FACTS OF THE CASE
This petition was filed because the petitioner was unhappy with the order issued on September 1, 2022, by the Controlling Authority under the P.G. Act, as the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhopal, in Gratuity Case No. 64 of 2019. The order directed the State Authorities to pay the deceased employee’s gratuity and interest within a thirty-day period. This order was dated September 6, 2022. After more than a year and a half, a petition challenging this order is filed in 2024. The petition takes refuge in the rulings of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. (S) 9722 of 2013 (Controller, Government Printing and Stationary Press vs. Rashida Bee) & other related matters decided on October 29, 2013. The application argues that the worker is not eligible for a gratuity payment under the provisions of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which is included in Annexure P-1. It is clear reading the Supreme Court’s ruling that the facts of that particular case are completely different. Previously, victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy were trained and absorbed in the Industries Department before being assigned to the M.P. Government Printing and Stationary Department, which is an industry. With this background and in consideration of the aforementioned prayer, the learned Labour Court instructed the State Instrumentality, by order dated 18.12.2002, to regularly classify the respondents as Junior Binders starting on July 29, 1998, and to award them the pay scale and any salary differential that qualifies them for the Junior Binder position. The State Government challenged this ruling in front of the High Court, which took a more progressive stance by ordering the regularization of daily wagers against 150 open positions in the Junior Binder cadre. The State Government had appealed to the Supreme Court, feeling wronged by the High Court’s decision to allow the applicant to regularise the respondents, citing that the High Court erred in declaring that 150 Junior Binder positions were open and available.
ISSUES
Whether the State Authorities should pay the deceased employee’s gratuity and interest?
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court traces the history of the Rashida Bee case, explaining that: The employees initially approached the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their claim as it lacked jurisdiction. They then approached the High Court, which also dismissed their petition. Finally, they went to the Labour Court, which ruled in their favor regarding regularization and pay scales, which was then challenged by the State in the High Court. In the Rashida Bee case, the Supreme Court modified the Labour Court’s order and directed a settlement payment of Rs. 2,00,000 each to the employees, without setting a precedent for other cases. The Hon’ble High Court clarifies that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Rashida Bee case does not relate to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and thus cannot be used as a precedent to deny gratuity. The court explains that: The definitions of ’employee’ and ’employer’ under Sections 2(e) and 2(f) respectively, along with the concept of ‘continuous service’ under Section 2(a), clearly mandate the payment of gratuity and that the Assistant Labour Commissioner’s order to pay gratuity is based on these mandatory provisions. The court finds that the State’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rashida Bee is incorrect and irrelevant to the present case of gratuity payment. The Hon’ble High Court concludes that the State’s petition lacks merit due to the inappropriate grounds for challenge and the delay in filing. Thus, the petition was dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao
