M.C. CHAMARAJU versus HIND NIPPON RURAL INDUSTRIAL (P) LTD.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 24-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

M.C. CHAMARAJU 
A 
v. 
HIND NIPPON RURAL INDUSTRIAL (P) LTD. 
AUGUST 24, 2007 
{C.K. THAKKERANDTARUNCHATIERJEE,JJ.J 
B 
Jabour Laws: 
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; S. 7(4)/Payment of Gratuity (Central) C 
Rules, 1972; R.10(1): 
Payment of Gratuity to workman-Eligibility-Held: Payment of 
Gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation-In interpreting the provisions of 
such a legislation, a liberal view should be taken-Since a small amount is 
involved, Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in interfering D 
with the findings of facts arrived at by the authorities and affirmed by the 
Single Judge of the High Court-The question raised before the authority 
was whether the workman in question had completed five years continuous 
service so as to be eligible to claim gratuity under the Act-Controlling 
authority as also the appellate authority, on the basis of evidence, came to 
the finding that he was qualified and thus entitled to claim gratuity under E 
the Act-Single Judge of the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition 
filed by the employer on the basis of the findings recorded by the authorities-
Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have gone through the 
question of fact, which exercise had been done by the controlling authority 
as also by the appellate authority-High Court was exercising power of F 
judicial review, which in its inherent nature, has certain limitations-Under 
the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court 
was wrong in setting aside the orders of the Single Judge and the authority-
Hence, order passed by the Division Bench set aside and that of the controlling 
authority is restored-Constitution of India-Power of the High Court-
Judicial Review-Interpretation of Statutes--Interpretation of provisions of G 
beneficial legislation. 
Appellant was appointed as Supervisor in the respondent-company. 
According to him, he worked as Supervisor for. more than five years at various 
offices of the Company. From March, 1993 onwards he was allegedly neither H 
361 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A paid salary nor any order of termination or dismissal was served .on him by 
the employer-company. The appellant-employee, therefore, requested the 
Management to settle his dues and also to pay gratuity under the Act. But it 
was not paid. He then approached the Controlling Authority by making an 
application under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act 
B read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 
1972. The Controlling Authority held that the_ appellant was entitled to 
gratuity and ordered to make payment of the gratuity to him with interest@ 
10% p.a. from June 12, 1993 till the date of payment. Aggrieved, the employer 
filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed by the 
Appellate Authority. The employer challenged the order of the appellate 
C authority by filing a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by 
the Single Judge of the High Court Appeal filed thereagainst by the employer 
was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by setting aside all the 
orders, dismissing the application filed by the workman. H~nce the present 
D 
appeal 
· 
Appellant-workman contended that the Division Bench of the High Court 
was wholly unjustified in setting aside the orders passed by the Authorities 
under the Act and confirmed by the Single Judge of the High Court; that 
while setting aside the orders, the Division Bench of the High Court has 
virtually re-appreciated the evidence which could not have been done and on 
E that ground also, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and that a 
finding of fact arrived at by the Authorities under the Act could not have been 
disturbed by the Division Bench of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. The appeal deserves to be allowed. From the record, it is 
clear that the question which was raised before the Authorities under the 
Payment of Gratuity Act was whether the appellant had completed five years' 
continuous service so as to be eligible to claim gratuity under the Payment of 
Gratuity Act. The Authorities considered the said question and on the basis 
G of the evidence adduced before them, held that various units where the appellant 
had worked were "one and the same" and hence the entire service of the 
workman ought to be considered and taken into account for the purp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.