Delhi High Court
M/S Centre For Development Of ... vs The Appellate Authority & ... on 29 July, 2008
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No.389/2008
M/s Centre for Development
of Telematics ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Rajeeve Mehra with
Mr.Ajay Bhatnagar, Advocates
versus
The Appellate Authority & Regional
Labour Commissioner (Centre) & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
JUDGMENT
% 29.7.2008
1. The short question is whether the orders passed by the
authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act directing payment
of gratuity to respondent No.3 are correct.
2. The respondent No.3 joined the services of the appellant
on 4th July, 1994 and resigned on 14th July, 2000. She was not
paid her gratuity on the ground that she remained absent for 514
days on account of sickness of her children. That was an
authorised and sanctioned leave. The Controlling Authority and
[LPA 389/2008] page 1 of 3
Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), New Delhi, vide its order
dated 19th April, 2007 directed the appellant to pay a sum of
Rs.54,910/- to the respondent No.3 with simple interest of 8% per
annum from 14th July, 2000. The Appellate Authority dismissed
the appeal filed by the appellant on 14th January, 2008. The writ
petition of the appellant was dismissed by the learned single
Judge on 5th May, 2008.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied
upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, ONGC Ltd.
and another v. V.U. Warrier {AIR 2005 SC 3039} wherein
following its earlier decisions in Garment Cleaning Works v.
Its workmen {(1962) 1 SCR 711} and Calcutta Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Their workmen {(1967) 2 SCR 596}, the Supreme Court
observed that "long and meritorious service" must mean long
unbroken period of service meritorious to the end. As the period
of service must be unbroken, so must the continuity of
meritorious service be a condition for entitling the workman to
gratuity. The question in that case was whether the workman
who commits such misconduct as causing financial loss to his
employer, is entitled to gratuity. We fail to see how this decision
has any application in the facts of the present case.
[LPA 389/2008] page 2 of 3
4. It is true that the respondent No.3 took leave for 514 days
on account of sickness of her children but the leave was not
unauthorised. In any event no order was passed by the appellant
- employer that these days shall be treated as break in service.
Section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which defines
continuous service also includes period under leave and even
absence from duty without leave unless an order treating the
absence as break in service was passed in accordance with law.
5. In the result, we find no ground to interfere with the order
directing payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
The appeal is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.MURALIDHAR
July 29, 2008 JUDGE
"nm"
[LPA 389/2008] page 3 of 3
