LAWS(MAD)-2002-2-214

MANAGEMENT OF DURGABHAI DESHMUKH GENERAL HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, ANDHRA MAHILA SABHA BY ITS VICE PREMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONDENT AKKAMA KRISHNAMOORTHY, DR DURGABHAI DESHMUK ROAD, MADRAS Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR (APPEALS)

Decided On February 01, 2002
Management Of Durgabhai Deshmukh General Hospital And Research Centre, Andhra Mahila Sabha By Its Vice Premployees State Insurance Corporationdent Akkama Krishnamoorthy, Dr Durgabhai Deshmuk Road, Madras Appellant
V/S
Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act (Deputy Commissioner For Labour (Appeals) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Management has filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in Payment of Gratuity Appeal No.4 of 1997 dated 30.7.1997 and quash the said orders and made therein.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a voluntary organization, recognized as an All India Social Service Organization registered under the Societies Registration Act, and that it is running several institutions such as schools, nursing home, hostels etc.

(3.) The fourth respondent was originally employed on 1.5.1970 in the petitioner's nursing home as Accounts clerk cum typist, that the fourth respondent voluntarily opted to work under the Family Welfare Scheme from 12.11.1973 and was working till his superannuation on 30.9.1994 under the grant scheme as a store-keeper cum accounts clerk which was later converted to the post of computer operator as per Government order dated 5.11.1989, and that the Government have authorised the absorption of the fourth respondent as computer operator, which was extended year after year, that the fourth respondent was drawing salary and allowances on par with Government Servants, which was revised in terms of third, fourth and fifth pay commissions, that on one occasion, the Government found that the fourth respondent was not qualified for holding the post of the computer operator and consequently, his pay and allowances were not released by the Government; that when the fourth respondent went to Court for relief, the Government relaxed the qualification and released pay and allowances of the fourth respondent.