Labour Law: Certified Standing Orders – Application filed by the appellant (employer) to the Joint Commissioner of Labour (certifying officer) seeking permission to add new ground i.e. “break in service” in Clause 16 of the Chapter of Punishment in Certified Standing Orders – Labour court and High Court dismissed the application – On appeal, held: A “break in service” cannot be allowed as a ground by way of punishment in Clause 16 of the Chapter of Punishment in Certified Standing Orders – Such a ground will defeat the very object of the Payment of Gratuity Act which is a beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of the employees – The proposed ground, if allowed, is likely to be misused by the employers against its employees for their own benefit and detrimental to the employees’ interest – No interference with the order of High Court called for – Payment of Gratuity Act.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The existing grounds enumerated in Clause 16 by way of punishment are sufficient to take care of any misconduct committed by any employee and there is no reason to introduce one more new ground in the existing grounds specified in Clause
16 for imposing a new punishment. Secondly, the proposed ground, if allowed, would likely to be misused by the employer against its employees for their own benefit and detrimental to the employees’ interest. Thirdly, it would enable the employer to take action against its employees even in a situation where an employee is found absent even for a day and such absence will be treated as “break in service” under the Certified Standing Orders and also under the Payment of Gratuity Act. It will, therefore, be in conflict with the definition of the expression “continuous DISTRICT TEXTILE WORKERS UNION [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
service” defined under the Payment of Gratuity Act which gives different modes of calculation for determining the continuous service for payment of gratuity amount. Fourthly, such ground will, therefore, defeat the very object of the Payment of Gratuity Act which is a beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of the employees and lastly, it is neither bona fide nor reasonable and nor required and hence it cannot be allowed. [Paras 13-16] [1202-G-H; 1203-A-D]
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.