Glass Lined Equipment vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 2500 Guj

        C/SCA/15528/2020                                     ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15528 of 2020
                              With
          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15529 of 2020
                              With
          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15530 of 2020
                              With
          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15531 of 2020
                              With
          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15532 of 2020
                              With
          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15533 of 2020
                              With
          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15534 of 2020
                              With
          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15535 of 2020
==========================================================
                           GLASS LINED EQUIPMENT
                                    Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
MR. AKASH CHHAYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                               Date : 17/02/2021

                            COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Akash Chhaya for the respondent­State through video conference.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya for the petitioner has produced the receipts dated

C/SCA/15528/2020 ORDER

10.02.2021 issued by the petitioner in favour of each of the individual employee - workman who has joined the respondent no.3 in each of the petitions.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Yogen Pandya submits that now since the order passed by the learned Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Anand is complied with, these petitions have become infructuous. However, learned advocate Mr. Pandya draws attention of this Court to the observations made in paragraph­ 3 and the conclusion in the order dated 24.10.2019 by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, wherein, relying upon the various judgments, learned Controlling Authority has held that, though, the workmen are not the employee of the present petitioner and are the employees of the contractor, the present petitioner being a principal employer is required to pay the amount of gratuity, as ordered. However, the learned Controlling Authority has also specifically observed in the order that, in view of the judgment reported in 2013 LLR 374 (Madras High Court) r/w. Section 21(4) of the Contract Act, 1972 and Section 4(6)(d) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the petitioner is entitled to recover the said amount from the

C/SCA/15528/2020 ORDER

respective contractors. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya also draws attention of this Court to the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court reported in 2017 (1) CLR 612 in the case of Cummins (I) Limited; Ananta T. Bhoj and others v. Industrial Cleaning Services & Others; Cummins (I) Limited, decided on 05.01.2017 and urges to this Court that, now since the workmen have received their dues as per the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in view of the aforesaid judgment as well as observations made by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the liberty may be reserved in favour of the present petitioner to file appropriate proceedings against the contractors for recovering the amount already paid to the workmen, who are joined as respondent nos.4 and

5.

4. Considering the observations made by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in the order dated 24.10.2019, as well as considering the judgment cited by the learned advocate Mr. Pandya which are referred herein­above, the liberty as prayed for is granted and also considering the fact that, now the workmen have already received their dues as

C/SCA/15528/2020 ORDER

per the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which is the subject matter of challenge in each of these petitions, now, no further recovery is required to be done from the petitioner.

5. With the aforesaid observations and with the above directions, all these petitions stand disposed of, as having become infructuous.

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pradhyuman