REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union (Represented By Its General Secretary, Coimbatore) Appellant

V/S

Sree Meenaxshi Mills, Ltd. (Represented By Its Executive Director, V. G. Maheswari), Madurai Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

COLONIAL SUGAR REFINING COMPANY V. IRVING [REFERRED TO]
EAST END DWELLINGS COMPANY LTD. V. FINSBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
<RC>1988(2) LLN 352</RC> MADRAS HIGH COURT <JGN>M. N. CHANDURKAR,M. SRINIVASAN</JGN> <AT>WRIT APPEAL NO. 631 OF 1986 AND WRIT PETITIONS NOS. 8955,8956,9423 TO 9426,9090,9091,9105,9106,10326,10327,11096,11097,11701,11702,11917 AND 11918 OF 1985 AND 7035 AND 7036 OF 1986.</AT> 11.03.1987 11.3.1987 COIMBATORE DISTRICT TEXTILE WORKERS UNION (REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,COIMBATORE) COIMBATORE PERIYAR DISTRICT DRAVIDA PANCHALAI THOZHILALAR MUNNETRA SANGAM,COIMBATORE - APPELLANT MADURAI DISTRICT MILL WORKERS UNION,MADURAI - APPELLANT SREE MEENAXSHI MILLS,LTD. (REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,V. G. MAHESWARI),MADURAI J. D. KUPPUSWAMI - RESPONDENT UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LABOUR DEPARTMENT - RESPONDENT VERSUS AND VERSUS [REFERRED TO]
JEEWANLAL (1929),LTD.,MADRAS,V. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT [REFERRED TO]
M. VARADARAJA PILLAI V. HARIDAS GIRCHANDAS [REFERRED TO]
RAI RAM KRISHNA V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
N B KHARE VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAMANRAO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. V G ROW:THE UNION OF INDIA AND THE STATE OF TRAVANCORE COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SUBODH GOPAL BOSE [REFERRED TO]
DWARKA PRASAD LAXMI NARAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
TIKA RAMJI OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA K NARENDRA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF DIMAKUCHI TEA ESTATE VS. MANAGEMENT OF DIMAKUCHI TEA ESTATE [REFERRED TO]
EXPRESS NEWSPAPER PRIVATE LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M K VENKATACHALAM I T O AND ANO THER VS. BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAI BAHADUR HURDUT ROY MOTI LALL JUTE MILLS:S K C SUGAR LIMITED:NEW SWADESHI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BHARATKHAND TEXTILE MANUFACTURING CO LIMITED AHMEDABAD VS. TEXTILE LABOUR ASSOCIATION BHADRA AHMEDABAD ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
GARMENT CLEANING WORKS BOMBAY VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
JEEWANLAL 1929 LIMITEDCALCUTTA VS. ITS WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF SONE VALLEY PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF WENGER AND CO VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
NAROTTAMDAS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BAIJNATH KADIO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER T M GURUBUXANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JANAPADA SABHA CHHINDWARA STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. CENTRAL PROVINCES SYNDICATE LTD:AMALGAMATED COALFIELDS LTD [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA CHANDRA GANGOPADHYAYA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LALAPPA LINGAPPA MAHADU SITARAM VS. LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED :LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
GLAXO LABORATORIES INDIA LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT MEERUT [REFERRED TO]
RASIKLAL VAGHAJIBHAI PATEL VS. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
DELHI COTTON AND GENERAL MILLS CO VS. INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions arise for consideration in these cases. While one relates to the scope of the retrospective operation of S. 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the other relates to the constitutional validity of a part of the said section.

(2.) The Payment of Gratuity Act, hereinafter called the Act, was enacted by the Parliament to introduce a scheme for payment of gratuity for certain industrial and commercial establishments as a measure of social security. The intention of the Legislature was not only to achieve uniformity and reasonable degree of certainty, but also to create and bring into force a self contained and complete code relating to gratuity. Before the passing of the Act, there was no Central law dealing with the subject except the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. Legislations were made in Kerala and West Bengal in 1971 for payment of gratuity to workers employed in factories, plantations, shops and establishments. Apart from that, gratuity was being paid by some employers under agreements and awards. The need for a Central law on the subject was realised and the Act was passed in 1972 governing factories, mines, oil-fields, plantations, ports, railway companies, shops or other establishments in the matter of payment of gratuity and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is not necessary for us to refer to the provisions of the Act in detail herein as the controversy in this case revolves round the definition of "continuous service" introduced by an amendment of the Act in 1984.

(3.) Originally, the term "continuous service" was defined by S. 2(c) of the Act as uninterrupted service including service interrupted by sickness, accident, leave, layoff, strike or a lockout or cessation of work not due to the fault of employee concerned, whether such uninterrupted or interrupted service was rendered before or after the commencement of the Act. The section contained two explanations as follows :

Click here to view full judgment.

COIMBATORE DISTRICT TEXTILE WORKERS UNION (REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, COIMBATORE) Vs. SREE MEENAXSHI MILLS, LTD. (REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, V. G. MAHESWARI), MADURAI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address