The Fertilizers and Chemicals vs P.G. Radhakrishnan Nair and Others

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—Whether the appellant is justified in categorizing the employees who ''resigned'' from the service as a separate class, so as to deny the benefit of gratuity based on the pay revision effected with effect from 1.1.1997, is the moot point involved.

The sequence of events shows that a pay revision was implemented in the appellant Company as per Ext.P2, pursuant to Ext.P1 issued by the Department of Public Enterprises, with effect from 1.1.1997. Arrears of salary were stipulated to be paid only with effect from a subsequent date, because of the frustrating pecuniary position of the company. The benefits derived by virtue of the pay revision were given to the employees in due course. However, in respect of the persons who were ''superannuated'' between 1.1.1997 and 30.6.2001, the said benefits were denied; which made them to approach this Court seeking for disbursement of the due benefits. After hearing both the sides, Ext.P3 judgment was passed in the writ petition, answering the position in favour of the petitioners and against the company; which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing a writ appeal before this Court culminating in Ext.P4 judgment passed by the Division Bench; whereby the appeal preferred by the company was dismissed. On finalizing the proceedings as above, the benefits were extended to the said persons as well.

However, coming to the case of the persons who ''resigned'' from the service in the aforesaid period, the company tried to draw a distinction that they stood on a different pedestal than the employees covered by Exts.P3 and P4 and therefore, the benefit was denied to them; which made them to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. The factual and legal positions were analyzed by the learned Single Judge who held that the course pursued by the appellant company was not in conformity with the law declared by this Court and accordingly, referring to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in UCO Bank and Others Vs. Sanwar Mal, the writ petition was allowed, holding that the persons concerned were also entitled to have the benefit of gratuity in terms of the pay revision effected from 1.1.1997 in the same manner as it was ordered to be paid in respect of the persons covered by Exts.P3 and P4; which in turn is subjected to challenge in the present writ appeal.

The learned Counsel appearing for the company submits that the plight of the company is discernible from the pay revision proceedings and it was accordingly, that the arrears of salary were paid only in the year 2001, though the pay revision was implemented with effect from 1.1.1997. This, however, cannot be a tool for the company to deny the pensionary benefits which include the ''gratuity'', which of course is a statutory right u/s 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The relevant provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act govern the case of the persons who ''resigned'' from the service, as well. The findings and reasonings given by the learned Single Judge for allowing the the writ petition appear to be very much correct and proper and are not assailable.

No interference is warranted and the writ appeal is dismissed accordingly.