Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.2(e) r/w s.2A – Qualified service – Appellant rendered 22 years as daily wager and 3 years as regular work charge employee i.e. he was regularised 3 years prior to his retirement – Whether appellant can be said to have rendered qualified service i.e. continuous service as specified in s.2(e) r/w s.2A so as to make him eligible to claim gratuity as provided under the Act from the State – Held: Appellant actually rendered total service for a period of 25 years and the State actually regularized his services – Having regularized the services, the appellant became entitled to claim its benefit for counting the period of 22 years regardless of the post and the capacity on which he worked for 22 years – Once the State regularized the services of the appellant while he was in State services, the appellant became entitled to count his total period of service for claiming the gratuity amount subject to his proving continuous service of 5 years as specified under s.2A of the Act which, in this case, the appellant has duly proved – The statute being a welfare legislation meant for the benefit of the employees, who serve their employer for a long time, it is the duty of the State to voluntarily pay the gratuity amount to the appellant rather than to force the employee to approach the Court to get his genuine claim.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: In the circumstances appearing in the case, it would be the travesty of justice, if the appellant is denied his legitimate claim of gratuity despite rendering “continuous service” for a period of 25 years which even, according to the State, were regularized. The question as to from which date such services were regularized was of no significance for calculating the total length of service for claiming gratuity amount once the services were regularized by the State. It was indeed the State who took
22 years to regularize the service of the appellant and went on taking work from the appellant on payment of a meager salary of Rs.2776/- per month for 22 long years uninterruptedly and only in the last three years, the State started paying a salary of Rs.11,107/- per month to the appellant. Having regularized the services of the appellant, the State had no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of gratuity to the appellant which was his statutory right under the Act. It being a welfare legislation meant for the benefit of the employees, who serve their employer for a long time, it is the duty of the State to voluntarily pay the gratuity amount to the appellant rather than to force the employee to approach the Court to get his genuine claim. It is really unfortunate that the genuine claim of the appellant was being denied by the State at every stage of the proceedings up to this Court and dragged him in fruitless litigation for all these years. [Paras 17, 18, 19] [687-A-E]
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 –
held inapplicable.
Firm Kaluram Sitaram v. The Dominion of India
AIR 1954 Bombay 50 – approved.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.