0

Tripura High Court Affirms Gratuity Entitlement for AWWs and AWHs.

Blog ,

Case Title: Smt. Bina Rani Paul & Ors. Vs. The State of Tripura & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No.624 of 2023

Dated on: 9th May, 2024

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

Facts:

The prima facie of the case involves a group of petitioners comprising Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) from various locations in Tripura. These workers were engaged under the Intensive Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS) at different Anganwadi centers. Upon reaching the age of 60, their engagements were discontinued, and they sought gratuity and other post-retirement benefits. The petitioners submitted representations to the Director of Social Welfare & Social Education, Tripura, but their claims were rejected, citing an existing scheme that provided monthly pension or one-time financial benefits instead of gratuity. In response, the petitioners filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to provide gratuity and other post-retirement benefits, as well as to quash the memorandum rejecting their claims. Their counsel argued that Anganwadi establishments fall under the definition of ‘establishment’ in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and cited a SC decision and a Rajasthan HC decision supporting their entitlement to gratuity.

The state respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the SC’s decision relied upon by the petitioners was specific to the State of Gujarat and not applicable to Tripura. They also contended that Anganwadi centers in Tripura did not meet the criteria of an ‘establishment’ under the Gratuity Act, and there was no specific scheme in place for gratuity for AWWs and AWHs in Tripura. However, the U.O.I represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India, supported the state’s position, emphasizing that the policy decisions regarding benefits for employees should be left to expert bodies and could have financial implications.

Issues framed by the Court:

  1. Whether Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) in Tripura are entitled to gratuity and other post-retirement benefits upon reaching the age of 60, despite the existing scheme offering monthly pension or one-time financial benefits instead?
  2. Whether the definition of ‘establishment’ under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, encompasses Anganwadi centres in Tripura, thus making AWWs and AWHs eligible for gratuity under the Act?
  3. Whether the Supreme Court decision cited by the petitioners, which supported their entitlement to gratuity, is applicable to the state of Tripura, considering it was specific to the State of Gujarat?
  4. Whether the absence of a specific scheme for gratuity for AWWs and AWHs in Tripura precludes the court from mandating such benefits, especially considering potential financial implications and policy decisions?

Contentions of the Appellant:

The contentions of the appellant, primarily revolve around asserting the entitlement of Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) in Tripura to receive gratuity and other post-retirement benefits. The appellant argues that the petitioners, upon reaching the age of 60, should receive gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, citing a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya vs. District Development Officer Dahod and others. This decision established the entitlement of AWWs and AWHs to gratuity upon retirement. The appellant contends that Anganwadi establishments fall under the definition of ‘establishment’ in the Act, thus making the workers eligible for gratuity. Furthermore, the appellant challenges the rejection of the petitioners’ claims for gratuity and other benefits, arguing that the existing scheme offering monthly pension or one-time financial benefits does not preclude their entitlement to gratuity. Thus, the appellant seeks a writ mandating the provision of gratuity and other post-retirement benefits to the petitioners.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The respondents, argued that the SC decision cited by the petitioners, which supports their entitlement to gratuity, was specific to Gujarat and may not apply to Tripura. Furthermore, they contend that Anganwadi centres in Tripura may not meet the criteria of an ‘establishment’ under the Gratuity Act, which is necessary for the workers to be eligible for gratuity benefits. They also point out that there is currently no specific scheme in place in Tripura for providing gratuity to Anganwadi workers upon retirement. Additionally, the respondents argue that the decision to provide certain benefits, including gratuity, should be left to expert bodies and policymakers, as implementing such benefits could have financial implications for the government. Moreover, they highlighted the importance of considering potential financial consequences and policy decisions before mandating additional benefits for employees.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

In its analysis and judgment, the court examined the arguments presented by both the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners contended that Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) in Tripura were entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, citing a Supreme Court decision and a Rajasthan High Court decision supporting their claim. They argued that Anganwadi establishments fell under the definition of ‘establishment’ in the Act. The respondents, however, opposed this claim, arguing that the Supreme Court decision relied upon by the petitioners was specific to the State of Gujarat and not applicable to Tripura. They also contended that Anganwadi centers in Tripura did not meet the criteria of an ‘establishment’ under the Gratuity Act. Additionally, they emphasized the absence of a specific scheme for gratuity for AWWs and AWHs in Tripura. After considering the arguments, the court analysed the provisions of the Gratuity Act and relevant case law. It noted that while the SC decision relied upon by the petitioners was specific to Gujarat, the principles laid down therein could be applicable to other states, including Tripura. The court also observed that the absence of a specific scheme for gratuity for AWWs and AWHs in Tripura did not preclude their entitlement to gratuity under the Act. Eventually, the court ruled in favour of the petitioners, holding that AWWs and AWHs in Tripura were entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, upon reaching the age of 60. The court directed the respondents to provide gratuity and other post-retirement benefits to the petitioners accordingly.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta

Click here to read the judgement

0

MP High Court upholds Gratuity Payment for Deceased Employee despite Delayed Challenge

Blog , , ,

CASE TITLE – Controller Government Printing Press And Stationary v. Nafeesa Bano & Ors.

CASE NUMBER – WRIT PETITION No. 3507 of 2024

DATED ON – 26th OF FEBRUARY, 2024

QUORUM – Hon’ble Shri Justice Vivek Agarwal

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

This petition was filed because the petitioner was unhappy with the order issued on September 1, 2022, by the Controlling Authority under the P.G. Act, as the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhopal, in Gratuity Case No. 64 of 2019. The order directed the State Authorities to pay the deceased employee’s gratuity and interest within a thirty-day period. This order was dated September 6, 2022. After more than a year and a half, a petition challenging this order is filed in 2024.  The petition takes refuge in the rulings of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. (S) 9722 of 2013 (Controller, Government Printing and Stationary Press vs. Rashida Bee) & other related matters decided on October 29, 2013. The application argues that the worker is not eligible for a gratuity payment under the provisions of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which is included in Annexure P-1. It is clear reading the Supreme Court’s ruling that the facts of that particular case are completely different. Previously, victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy were trained and absorbed in the Industries Department before being assigned to the M.P. Government Printing and Stationary Department, which is an industry. With this background and in consideration of the aforementioned prayer, the learned Labour Court instructed the State Instrumentality, by order dated 18.12.2002, to regularly classify the respondents as Junior Binders starting on July 29, 1998, and to award them the pay scale and any salary differential that qualifies them for the Junior Binder position.  The State Government challenged this ruling in front of the High Court, which took a more progressive stance by ordering the regularization of daily wagers against 150 open positions in the Junior Binder cadre.  The State Government had appealed to the Supreme Court, feeling wronged by the High Court’s decision to allow the applicant to regularise the respondents, citing that the High Court erred in declaring that 150 Junior Binder positions were open and available.

ISSUES

Whether the State Authorities should pay the deceased employee’s gratuity and interest?

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court traces the history of the Rashida Bee case, explaining that: The employees initially approached the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their claim as it lacked jurisdiction. They then approached the High Court, which also dismissed their petition. Finally, they went to the Labour Court, which ruled in their favor regarding regularization and pay scales, which was then challenged by the State in the High Court. In the Rashida Bee case, the Supreme Court modified the Labour Court’s order and directed a settlement payment of Rs. 2,00,000 each to the employees, without setting a precedent for other cases. The Hon’ble High Court clarifies that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Rashida Bee case does not relate to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and thus cannot be used as a precedent to deny gratuity. The court explains that: The definitions of ’employee’ and ’employer’ under Sections 2(e) and 2(f) respectively, along with the concept of ‘continuous service’ under Section 2(a), clearly mandate the payment of gratuity and that the Assistant Labour Commissioner’s order to pay gratuity is based on these mandatory provisions. The court finds that the State’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rashida Bee is incorrect and irrelevant to the present case of gratuity payment. The Hon’ble High Court concludes that the State’s petition lacks merit due to the inappropriate grounds for challenge and the delay in filing. Thus, the petition was dismissed.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

The Rajasthan High Court held that it is unlawful to withhold an employee’s pension or gratuity, especially if they are already enrolled in an outdated pension plan

Blog , , ,

Title: Ramesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Decided on: 19 October, 2023

+ Civil Writ Petition No. 20043/2017

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Introduction

A Municipal Corporation was recently ordered by the Rajasthan High Court to release an employee’s pension and gratuity payments, ruling that it was unlawful, unfair, and capricious to withhold such benefits. Given that the petitioner had previously been enrolled in the Old Pension Scheme, the court further stated that the Corporation’s request for him to select between the New Pension Scheme and the Old Pension Scheme was unlawful.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner’s employment as a driver was terminated in 1985 after it was first hired on November 14, 1982. He then filed an industrial dispute, which resulted in an award that reversed his dismissal and ordered his reinstatement with full-service continuity. The Corporation appealed the decision, but it was turned down. The Corporation then filed an appeal, which was only partially granted and restricted the amount of back pay to the petitioner’s appointment date. The petitioner received a regular pay scale on January 19, 2006, and was restored on February 8, 2001, with effect from April 13, 1994. Regretfully, on July 5, 2006, this decision was withdrawn, which led the petitioner to pursue a civil petition in 2006. On December 16, 2008, the court granted this petition. The Corporation then went ahead and reinstated the order from January 19, 2006, which indicated that the petitioner was now a regular employee. The petitioner reached superannuation age on December 31, 2016, and retired after serving the required number of years. But even after a significant length of time had passed, the Corporation still neglected to pay the petitioner’s retirement benefits, such as his pension and gratuity. The petitioner filed a court case under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Courts analysis and decision

The Corporation’s decision to withhold the petitioner’s pension and gratuity was deemed unlawful, arbitrary, and unreasonable by the court. Accordingly, it was decided that the petitioner was entitled to interest at the rate of nine percent annually under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, as well as gratuity and pension in compliance with the terms of the Old Pension Scheme. As a result, the court granted the writ petition and directed the Corporation to release the petitioner’s pension and gratuity as soon as possible, together with interest accruing at the rate of 9% annually from the date of due until the payment is actually made, which should happen within three months.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

0

Patna High Court directed the respondent to pay entire amount of GPF along with statutory interest to the petitioner

Blog , , ,

TITLE: Padam Kumar Sharma v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Decided on: 19-07-2023

CWJC No: 7458/2023

Coram: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

Facts of the case:

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informs that the retiral dues on account of group insurance, gratuity and commutation of pension have been processed. 

Mr. Madan Jeet Kumar, learned G.P. 20 appearing on behalf of the State submits that he has been informed by the Treasury Officer that the same will be credited into the account of the petitioner today or by tomorrow. Learned counsel further informs that in paragraph no.17 of the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that total amount on account of GPF Rs.7,14,125/- has been paid to the petitioner whereas he is liable for payment of 18,00,000/- (Eighteen lac) along with the statutory interest as assessed by him. Learned counsel further submits that as informed by the District Provident Officer, the entire amount will be paid to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks after receiving deduction statement from the places of posting of the petitioner. 

Analysis of the court and decision:

Considering the information as provided by the learned counsel for the State, the writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the District Provident Officer, Munger, who is Incharge of Sheikhpura also, to ensure that the entire amount on account of GPF is paid to the petitioner along with statutory interest in accordance with law within a period of two weeks, failing which this Court will take appropriate legal action against the District Provident Officer, Munger (Incharge of Sheikhpura).

At this Stage, Mr. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he will file a detailed representation before the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Sheikhpura for making payment of remaining dues and the statutory interest, which still remains to be paid to the petitioner. He will also file a representation before the District Provident Officer, Munger, who is Incharge of Sheikhpura district to facilitate payment of the retiral dues to the petitioner. 

It is made clear that the authorities must not delay in making payment of the retiral dues in accordance with law to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order.

With the above observation/direction, the present writ petition is disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Meghana D

Click to view judgement