FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. SHYAM SUNDER DEEPAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 21-12-2001 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur (M.P.) (henceforth "the Appellate Authority") in Appeal No. PGA 50/99.ES.IV, whereby the Petitioner - Corporation was directed to pay a gratuity of Rs. 24,300.00 declaring service rendered by Respondent No. 1 with the State Government as continuous service without break in service.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell are that Respondent No. 1, while working as officiating copyist in the office of District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III in the Petitioner -Corporation. Respondent No. 1 was duly selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III in the Petitioner - Corporation vide order dated 7-2-1968 (Annexure P-2). A formal appointment order was issued on 2-3-1968 (Annexure P-3). Service of Respondent No. 1 was confirmed on regular basis. On attaining the age of superannuation, Respondent No. 1 retired from service with effect from 19-3-1998. Respondent No. 1 was paid gratuity amount under provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (henceforth 'the Act, 1972') and the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 for the period Respondent No. 1 worked with the Petitioner - Corporation. Respondent No. 1 was not granted continuity of service for working with the State Government. Being aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bilaspur (henceforth 'the Controlling Authority') claiming, additional payment of gratuity to the extent of Rs. 24,300.00 for the service rendered by him with the State Government. The Controlling Authority, by its order dated 30-7-1999 (Annexure P-5) in Case No. BSP/ 36 (14) 99-ALC. dismissed the application of Respondent No. 1 holding that Respondent No. 1 was not entitled to gratuity for the period he had worked with the State Government.

(3.) BEING aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal under Section 7 (7) of the Act, 1972 before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. PGA 50/99. ES.IV. The Appellate Authority, relying on Explanation 2 to Clause 4 of the Food Corporation of India (Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity) Regulations, 1967 (henceforth "the Regulations, 1967'), held as under :