Jharkhand High Court
Br. Baliram Beldar vs The Project Officer on 21 October, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 282 of 2018
Br. Baliram Beldar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Project Officer, Block-II O.C.P. Mines, under Block II Area of M/s
B.C.C.L., P.O.-Nadkhurkee, Baghmara, Dhanbad & Ors
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate
Mr. Shuvam Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
---
st
13/21 October 2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned order the
number of days for one month has been reduced to 26 days by taking into
consideration 4 holidays of Sunday in a month.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on
daily wage and the computation of gratuity in the present case is in terms of
Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 read with provisions of
National Coal Wage Agreement (in short "NCWA") which clearly provided
that the amount of gratuity would be payable for one month wages for each
completed year of service. The provisions of NCWA is quoted in the order
passed by the controlling authority as contained in Annexure- 5 to the writ
petition. He submits that one month means 30 days under Section 3 (35) of
General Clauses Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court-Nagpur Bench reported in 2015
(145) FLR 1055 [Western Coalfields Limited versus Babulal Athankar
(Dead) By Lrs.]. He has submitted that the reduction of number of days from
30 to 26 by the appellate authority is perverse. The appellate authority has not
at all considered the provisions of NCWA by which the parties are governed.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied
upon two judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1980)
4 SCC 106 paragraph 5 to submit that 4 holidays are required to be deducted
for every month and the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the
order passed by the concerned High Court. The learned counsel has also relied
upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1984) 4
SCC 356 paragraph 9, 10 and 12 to submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
again held that the gratuity payable under the Act treating the monthly wages
as wages for 26 working days is not new or unknown. The learned counsel has
further submitted that the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
have not been taken into consideration in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court which has been relied upon by the petitioner.
6. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were referable to Section 4
(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has
considered both the aforesaid judgments which have been relied upon by the
respondents and has interpreted the provision of Section 4(5) of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972. He has submitted that the petitioner is governed by Section
4 (5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and not by Section 4(2) and accordingly
the judgments relied upon by the respondents do not apply to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
7. To this, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that he shall
examine the matter as the provisions of Section 4(2) and 4(5) of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 are required to be considered in the present case.
8. Post this case for further argument tomorrow i.e. 22.10.2024 at 2:15 p.m.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
