LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus LABOUR COURT, JULLUNDUR & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
953
STATE OF PUNJAB
A
v .
. ~
,, .
LABOUR COURT, JULLUNDUR & ORS.
·. '
t.
~
~\
\
(
'?';
i' ol
i
I
Ocrober 16, 1979
[V. R. KRT~HNA lv!'R AND R. S. PATfr.\K, JJ.]
Poymmt of Gratuity Act, 1972-S. 1(3)(b)-Scope of-A Gov~rnment
projert wlmhtr an "Industrial Estnblishmcnr".
Rttrrnched 11 orkers-1/ entitTccl to gratulty-"Rctrenc:liment"-Meaning of.
Act, a sdf-co~ttained Code-Application for gratuiry-Tf "'ou/d fie under
1• J3 C(2} of Jndu.rtrial Dispmcs Acl.
The re<>ponden!s. who were the employees of the H~dcl Department or the
Go,·ernment of Punjab, were retrenched on the completion of the work assign-
-ed to !bern.
Their claim for payment of gratuity under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 197:! having been rejected by the appellant,., th(y moved the
bbour Coun under s. 33-C(2) of the IndtL<trial Dispute~ Act.
1947. The
l.:lbonr (.curt allowed their claim. The High Court di<mi<<ed the appellant's
arpcal /11 //mint.
In appenl it .,..;J conkmkd that (I) the · view of the l.abour Court that the
projrct Wll' 11n esb.bli>hmcnt within tbe me:min[l: of the definition of •Indus-
trial establishment~ contained in ~. 2(ii) (g) of the Pa.ymcnt of Wages Act
1'3.< erroneous. and the i'a)•ment of We.sc.~ Act being a Central Act ~ not au
tnactment cont~mpl:>.ted by s. 1 (J )(b) of the Payment of Gr:lluity Act: (2)
'~ retren.:.hment is not superannuation or retir~m~nt or re~ignation or death
or di~blemcnt due to accident or disease as defined in s. 4( 1) ot th~ Act.
the ret rene hell employees were not entitled to gmtuity; ond (3) the P11yment
of Gratuity Act being a self-contained cod~. it exclud~ recourse to any o~r
ltltute for claimins; relief under thi' Act and. therefore,
the
respoodenl3'
application under a. 33-<:(2) of th~ Industrial Disputes Act. w::ts misconceived.
Allovrin;: the appenl In part;
HELD : 1( a). It Is not correct to say thnt whnt is contemplated by • s.
H3)(b) of the Payment or Grutuity Act is a I:Jrw enacted by the State Legts-
l:iture and not a Central Act like the Payment of Wnge5 A.ct_ There can bo
?0 doubt that when 1, 1(3 )(b) speao of "any law :or. t~e hme t-e!ng in force
" relation to $bop• und e~~tnbli!hmenu in 11 Stale
tt lnclu<l~ the Payment
<>f Wa~e; Act, which is 11 law in force in the Stnte. [956 B-C)
fb) 'The Paayment or Wnse• Act i' a ~tatute which. whi~e it m:t~ not re-
late to \ho...
1,
1 .
f
1. bli•htnents. i.e. in,tnstnal e>1llbhsbments.
T< .
, .• , rc alA!~ to a c u.s (1
~' a
·
"law~ ·n ~
B
c
D
E
F
G
'"''e ;. no Y.:trrnnt for limilillg tho meaning of the e.:rress•on
1 ..
lf3)(b) to a 1.
·h' h
I· t. 1 both shops and esL'Ibhsh~n~ such ~ th.e
H
l>unj;.b Sho~ :~ v.('~~.n:·r~~;l~ f:~t~blishmcnts Act, 1958: The e~presston l~
eomf)rehen~;
.
.
d
mean 0 Jnw in relatton to !hops as wdl
a,, c-ar•t•r"e ml tt, l~~eope ~~~ teun t bli•hment~ or a law in relation to &hOJ"S
·~ •' y. a aw n reiMton o e• a
·'
.
A
B
c
£
G
n ·
i I
r
954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 1 S.C.R..
ami tommcrcial establ~hme~ts and a J~w in relation to non-commercial ~ta
blishments.
Had the mtcnt1on of Parhamcnt been to refer to a law rclatin
to con.mercial establishments it would not have left the expression "cstabli~h~
ments" unqualified.
There is no reaso_n for giving a limit-ed meaning 10 s.
1 (3 )(b). · This section applies to CYery establishment within the mean in<> of
any law f(lr th'c time being in force in relation to establishments in a S~;tte.
Such an establishment would include an industrial establis-hment wilhiA the
meaning of s. 2(ii) (g) of the Payment of W2.gcs Act.
Therefore, the Pay-
ment of' Gratuity Act applies to an establishment in which any work relating,
among oth'ers, to the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity
or any other form of power is being cahied on as defined ins. 1(3)(b) of
tl:e Act. [956 D-H, 957 A)
2. The upr~ion "reufochment" which has been defined in s. 2(q) to
mean ''termination of the service of an ernplO)•ec otherwise than on
supcr-
<mnuation" is framed in the widest terms.
Ex-cept for
superannuation, any ,
termination of ~n;ce would amount 10 "retire!l1ent" for the purposes of the
.Act.
Retrenchment .is termination of ser.·ice.
It is
imm~terial that the ter-
m inatio!l is occasioned by the need to discharge surplus labour. [957 E-Fl
Bu:rl light Rdf..,·ay Company Lo.bour v. K. M. lo:;f.:lcar, .\]R 1957 SC
11 J, ref erred to.
3(a). Parliamem intended that proc~diogs foExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.