9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Gratuity Act for getting the benefit of gratuity after his retirement from service. Before the Authority, it was the case of the present Petitioner that the concerned employee, after completing 58 years of age on April 1, 1984, was continued as a Director of the Company and he had voluntarily retired on June 30, 1996 and since he was a Director of the Company, he was not entitled to any gratuity as he himself was a part and parcel of the management. Before the Authority, the management had shown its willingness to pay the amount of gratuity from April 1, 1976 to April 1, 1984 as observed by the Authority in its order. However, according to the Respondent, he was appointed from April 1, 1976 as a Branch Manager and thereafter, he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that there is a clear cut finding of fact given by the Authority in the order. The respondent was employed as a General Manager and he was drawing his salary as such and therefore, he cannot be denied the benefit of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, simply because some designation of 'Director' was given to him. He had no control over the functioning of the Company in any manner and all throughout, he was working and getting fixed salary and he was discharging his duty as a General Manager and additional status, even if it is given, is not relevant for denying the aforesaid benefits. He further argued that so far as the superannuation is concerned, ultimately, he had retired from service in the year 1996 and therefore, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e come to the conclusion that the respondent was not having any such control and accordingly, he was entitled to benefit of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as an employee of the company. 7. So far as the decision in J.K. Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers and Ors. (supra), is concerned, it was in connection with the provisions of the Factories Act and the question which was required to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether in the case of a Company, which owns or runs the factory, is it only a Director of the Company, who can be notified as the 'occupier' of the factory within the meaning of proviso (ii) to Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, or whether the compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nated by the company as an occupier of the Factory suffer from no infirmity whatsoever. Under the scheme of the Factories Act, therefore, the direction given by the Chief Inspector of Factories was found to be valid. 8. However, so far as the instant case is concerned, the question which is required to be considered is whether the respondent was an employee of the company or not and looking to the reasoning given by both the authorities to the effect that he had no ultimate control over the management and considering the definition of 'employee' as well as 'employer' given in the Act. I am of the opinion that the view taken by the authority is absolutely correct and no interference of this Court is required. 9. Mr. Jos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
