The Punjab State Cooperative Supply And Marketing Federation Ltd vs Appellate Authority And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
1-
LPA-674-2024 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(114-1) LPA-674-2024
Date of decision:- 02.09.2026
THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING
FEDERATION LIMITED
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
... RESPONDENTS
(114-2) LPA-1110-2024 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING
FEDERATION LIMITED
... APPELLANT
VERSUS
TARLOCHAN SINGH AND OTHERS
... RESPONDENTS
(114-3) LPA-542-2024 (O&M)
PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING
FEDERATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER
... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
KEWAL KRISHAN AND OTHERS
... RESPONDENTS
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.09.07 18:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
2-
LPA-674-2024 -
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR
Present:- Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate
for the appellant in LPA-674-2024.
Mr. Mayank Mathur, Advocate
for the appellant in LPA-1110-2024.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Advocate
for the appellants in LPA-542-2024.
Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate and
Mr. Lovedev Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.3 in LPA-674-2024 and
for respondent No.1 in LPA-1110-2024.
Mr. Munish Khanngwal, Advocate
for respondent No.1 in LPA-542-2024.
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. ( ORAL )
1.
This singular order shall dispose of all the above noted three appeals
as they involve common questions of law and fact. For the sake of
convenience, facutal matrix is being taken from LPA-674-2024.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by Punjab State Co-
operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as
“MARKFED”) challenging judgment dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge, whereby concurrent orders passed by competent authorities
under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short “the 1972 Act”), have been
affirmed.
3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that
respondent No. 3, Nathu Ram, initially joined services with MARKFED on
01.09.1976 as a Helper on daily wages. His services were subsequently
regularized on 22.12.1977 and he attained the age of superannuation in March,
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.09.07 18:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
3-
LPA-674-2024 -
2016. Following a two year extension granted as per the then state policy, he
was relieved from duty on 06.03.2018. Upon retirement, respondent No.3
submitted a claim before the controlling authority under the 1972 Act asserting
that he had not been paid the full statutory gratuity. Vide order dated
29.08.2019, controlling authority computed his total service as 40 years, that
is, from 01.09.1976 and determined eligible gratuity to be Rs.9,80,954/-.
Since MARKFED had paid a lesser amount, controlling authority directed the
release of the balance amount of Rs.49,048/- with interest at the rate of 10%
per annum. Statutory appeal filed by MARKFED under Section 7(7) of the
1972 Act was dismissed by the appellate authority on 16.12.2021. Writ
petition filed against both the orders has been rejected vide judgment
impugned herein.
4.
Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has urged
that the authorities have erred in including the daily wage service period from
01.09.1976 to 22.12.1977 for the purpose of calculating gratuity. It is his
contention that this period could not be termed as “continuous service” under
the 1972 Act and has to be excluded from computation of the retiral benefits,
which accrue from the date of regularization.
5. Per contra , counsel for the respondents have supported the orders
passed under the 1972 Act and have placed reliance upon the judgment of
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Netram Sah u Versus State of Chhattisgarh
and another , (2018) 5 SCC 430.
6. We have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-
book with their able assistance.
7. The sole question that arises for consideration is as to whether
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.09.07 18:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
4-
LPA-674-2024 -
service rendered by an employee on daily wage basis, prior to regularization
can be counted, towards calculation of “continuous service” for claiming
gratuity under the 1972 Act. This question has been answered by the Apex
Court in Netram Sah u 's case ( supra). Apex Court was confronted with a
situation where an employee had served for 22 years as a daily wager and had
served for only 3 years as a regular employee. His claim for gratuity was
resisted by the State on the ground that the employee did not possess the
requisite 5 years of regular service. Rejecting State's stand, Hon’ble the
Supreme Court held as under:-
“16. In our considered opinion, once the State regularised
the services of the appellant while he was in State services, the
appellant became entitled to count his total period of service
for claiming the gratuity amount subject to his proving
continuous service of 5 years as specified under Section 2-A of
the Act which, in this case, the appellant has duly proved.
17. In the circumstances appearing in the case, it would
be the travesty of justice, if the appellant is denied his
legitimate claim of gratuity despite rendering "continuous
service" for a period of 25 years which even, according to the
State, were regularised. The question as to from which date
such services were regularised was of no significance for
calculating the total length of service for claiming gratuity
amount once the services were regularised by the State.
18. It was indeed the State who took 22 years to
regularise the service of the appellant and went on taking work
from the appellant on payment of a meagre salary of Rs 2776
per month for 22 long years uninterruptedly and only in the
last three years, the State started paying a salary of Rs 11,107
per month to the appellant. Having regularised the services of
the appellant, the State had no justifiable reason to deny the
benefit of gratuity to the appellant which was his statutory
right under the Act. It being a welfare legislation meant for the
benefit of the employees, who serve their employer for a long
time, it is the duty of the State to voluntarily pay the gratuity
amount to the appellant rather than to force the employee to
approach the Court to get his genuine claim.”
8.
In view of the dictum in Netram Sah u 's case ( supra),
contention raised by MARKFED does not hold water. Total service rendered
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.09.07 18:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
5-
LPA-674-2024 -
by respondent No.3 from 01.09.1976 till his retirement has been rightly
counted, towards his continuous service. It is not in dispute that the 1972 Act
is applicable to the employees of MARKFED as is evident from a perusal of
memo dated 25.05.2016, whereby the MARKFED Common Cadre Rules,
1990 have been altered to specifically provide that gratuity shall be payable as
per the provisions of the 1972 Act, as amended from time to time.
Consequently, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge.
9.
All the three Letters Patent Appeals lack merit and are dismissed
with no order as to costs.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
( RAJESH GAUR )
JUDGE
02.09.2026
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.09.07 18:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.