9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 regarding eligibility for gratuity based on continuous service. Analysis: The petitioner, an employer, challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, contending that the workman was not entitled to gratuity for the entire service period due to unauthorized absence. The employer argued that gratuity is for service rendered, and unauthorized absence should not be considered. However, the Appellate Authority, relying on Section 2A of the Act, concluded that unless there is a specific order declaring a break in service for unauthorized absence, the said period cannot be excluded from continuous service for gratuity calculation. The respondent workman, on the other hand, argued that Section 2A of the Act does not allow exclusion of periods of absence, even if unauthorized, when the fact of employment is not in question. The respondent contended that the plain reading of Section 2A supports the Appellate Authority's decision in favor of the workman. Upon examining Section 2A of the Act, the Court found that it addresses situations where employment is not considered terminated, even during periods of unauthorized absence. The provision states that unless there is an order declaring absence as a break in service, the employment relationship is deemed continuous. Therefore, the Court held that the Appellate Authority's decision was not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the fact of employment from 19.02.1974 to 28.01.2002 was undisputed, and even if the workman had unauthorized absences, the continuous employment relationship persisted unless expressly declared otherwise. Consequently, the petition challenging the Appellate Authority's order was dismissed, ruling in favor of the workman.
|
