Allahabad High Court
UP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusAYODHYA PRASAD AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court modified the authority's order to include 8% interest and directed release of the deposited amount, while clarifying that the employee bears the initial burden of proving 240 days of service for belated gratuity claims.
Summary
The petitioner, Up State Road Transport Corporation, paid a retiring workman, Ayodhya Prasad, gratuity based on his last salary and later adjusted it under the 7th Pay Commission. The workman subsequently filed a claim before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for additional gratuity covering his period as a daily‑wage worker from 1980 to 1984, alleging the authority had not considered his entitlement. The authority, proceeding ex‑parte, ordered payment of the remaining Rs 80,030 and the corporation appealed, contending that the burden of proving 240 days of service lies on the employee and that the employer should not bear it. The High Court, noting the modest sum, modified the order to include 8% interest, directed release of the deposited amount, and observed that for belated claims the employee must first prove the requisite service, after which the employer must rebut. The writ petition was disposed without a substantive merits decision.
Issues considered
- Whether the Controlling Authority correctly calculated gratuity for the period when the employee was a daily‑wage worker.
- Whether the burden of proving 240 days of service under the relevant Government Order lies on the employee or the employer.
- Whether the High Court can modify the authority's order for a small amount and award interest.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- gratuity
- Payment of Gratuity Act
- daily wage employee
- burden of proof
- controlling authority
- interest
- writ petition
- employment law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 25489 of 2026
Up State Road Transport Corporation
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ayodhya Prasad And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sunil Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rudra Pratap Singh
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for petitioner
Corporation and Sri Rudra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondents.
2. The petitioner has claimed that respondent-workman was appointed
with petitioner-Corporation on 23.04.1984 (vide letter dated 19.04.1984)
as Cleaner and has attained superannuation on 30.04.2018 from the post
of Welder-II. On retirement, petitioner-Corporation calculated gratuity of
an amount of Rs. 4,64,214/- and was paid through cheque dated
24.07.2018. Subsequently, benefit of 7th Pay Commission was also
extended and difference of amount of gratuity was quantified at Rs.
63,989/- was also paid to said respondent on 20.05.2019. Admittedly,
contesting respondent has not taken any objection on aforesaid payment
of amount.
3. The contesting respondent filed a claim on 11.05.2019 before
Controlling Authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 for payment of unpaid gratuity of Rs. 2,37,324/- for the period when
said respondent was appointed on 01.04.1980 as Welder and on
19.04.1984, he was declared permanent was not considered for payment
of gratuity on basis of last salary paid.
4. During proceedings, it appears that petitioner-Corporation did not
produce any relevant document and proceedings proceeded ex-parte and
accordingly, Controlling Authority vide an order dated 30.06.2023
determined total gratuity of Rs. 6,08,233/- and that out of which Rs.
WRIC No. 25489 of 2026
2
5,28,203/- was already paid, therefore, a direction was passed for payment
of remaining amount of Rs. 80,030/- toward gratuity. The Corporation
filed an appeal against said order that petitioner remained daily wager
between 01.04.1980 and 19.04.1984, therefore, in terms of Government
Order dated 20.01.2019, if at all gratuity is to be paid, calculation is to
make on basis of average salary of last three months of said period as well
as burden to prove that said employee has worked 240 days in a calendar
year was upon said employee, however, Authorities have wrongly shifted
the burden to prove it on employer i.e. Corporation.
5. I have considered submissions and perused the records.
6. Before entering into merit of case, Court is of the view that since
amount is of only Rs. 80,000/-, therefore, keeping in view a very small
amount, Court does not find any interference except direction of interest
of 8% of it, therefore, impugned orders are modified to that extent. It has
been informed that said amount was deposited and therefore, respondent-
workman will be at liberty to file appropriate application for its release.
7. So far as merit is concerned, Court finds that though in this matter,
Court is not deciding the issue on merit, however, since it is informed that
such nature of claim are being filed by various workmen, therefore, it
would be necessary to observe that in case such belated claims are filed,
the Controlling Authority should consider before passing final order that
whether if concerned period, employee has worked as daily wager then
the gratuity has to be determined on basis of above referred G.O. as well
as burden to prove that employee has worked 240 days initially would be
on employee and if it is discharged, burden to rebut it would be on
employer i.e. Corporation.
8. With aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 7, 2026
N. Sinha
Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…