PATEL HIRALAL RAMLAL Vs. CHANDBIBI PIRUBHAI SMT
LAWS(GJH)-1980-9-6
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 18,1980

PATEL HIRALAL RAMLAL Appellant
VERSUS
CHANDBIBI PIRUBHAI Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

M/S MANILAL DAYALJI & COMPANY VS. GAYATRI BAI [LAWS(CHH)-2013-11-17] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.H.SHETH - (1.). These two petitions have been filed by the same petitioner (who is the employer) against the orders made under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 In Special Civil Application No. 3098 of 1979 respondent No. 1 is the workman. In Special Civil Application No. 965 of 1980 the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the workmen. The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing Beedis and in selling Beedis and loose tea. The workmen were manufacturing or rolling out Beedis for the petitioner They left his service. Thereafter they applied for payment of gratuity. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 ordered the payment of gratuity to these workmen in terms of the orders which he made.
(2.)The petitioner appealed against those orders to the Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate Authority it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the workmen were not employees within the meaning of the definition of that expression given in the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 That contention was negatived by the Appellate Authority. However the Appellate Authority on facts found that the cases deserved to be remanded to the Controlling Authority. He therefore made an order remanding the cases to the Controlling Authority for fresh consideration on merits. Those orders are challenged in these two petitions.
(3.)The only contention which Mr. K. S. Nanavaty has raised before us is that there was no relationship of an employer and an employee between the petitioner and his workmen He has also argued that the petitioner-employer had no control over the employees and that the right to reject the end product was not a factor determinative of whether the petitioner exercised control over these workmen. He has also argued that the definition of the expression employee given in the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 cannot be construed in light of the definitions of similar expressions given in other Acts.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.