DIVISIONAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF OF INDIA BANK STREET HYDERABAD Vs. T K RAMA MOORTHY
LAWS(APH)-1971-9-21
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 29,1971

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF OF INDIA, BANK STREET, HYDERABAD Appellant
VERSUS
T.K.RAMA MOORTHY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Madhusudan Rao, j. - (1.) This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writto quash the orders passed by thee Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (the third respondent) and the Regional Labour Commissioner (the second respondent). Under their orders, the third and second respondents awarded certain sums as gratuity to the first respondent who is a retired employee of the Central Bank of India which is the petitioner herein represented by its Divisional Manager.
(2.) The first respondent was appointed in the Central Bank on 17th May, 1946 on a monthly salary of Rs. 35 and was retired on 8th October, 1973 when he reached the age of superannuation. On the day when he retired, he was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1,061.50, Teller's allowance of Rs. 35 and also Dearness Allowance of Rs. 30.69 at the rate of 90% of the Teller's allowance. The first respondent was thus getting in all an amount of Rs. 1,127.19 ps. as his emoluments on the date of his retirement. On 29th November, 1973, he submitted an application for payment of gratuity under section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act). The third respondent awarded gratuity calculating the service of the first respondent from 17th May, 1946 to 31st January, 1972 being of the view that the Teller's allowance should be treated as wages and that therefore the first respondent should be deemed to have crossed the limit of Rs. 1,000 on 1st February, 1973. He has also directed the petitioner-bank to pay interest on the amount of gratuity held to be due being of the opinion that the petitioner-bank withheld the payment of gratuity wrongfully. The petitioner and the first respondent preferred appeals before the second respondent, Regional Labour Commissioner. The second respondent held that the first respondent was entitled to gratuity calculating the peried of service from 17th May, 1946 to 30th April, 1973 being of the view that the Teller's allowance does not form part of the wages. He has, however, set aside the order of the third respondent with regard to the payment of interest and thus disposed of both the appeals filed by the petitioner and the first respondent.
(3.) Sri R. Vaidyanathan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders of both the third and second respondents are bad in so far as the first respondent is not entitled to any gratuity under the Act, as the Act came into force on 16th September, 1972 and the first respondent was appointed in the bank long before the Act came into force and the provisions of the Act cannot be given retrospective effect. It is further argued by Sri Vaidyanathan that in any event, the first respondent cannot be deemed to be an employee of the bank within the meaning of section 2 (e) of the Act so as to entitle him to any gratuity under the Act in so far as on the date of his retirement, he was drawing more than Rs. 1.000. It is also contended by Sri Vaidyanathan that at any rate the period calculated by the second respondent for the purpose of gratuity is erroneous in so far as the Teller's allowance is a part of the wages of the first respondent according to the provisions of the Bipartite Settlements.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.