WRIT PETITION 9777 on 26 September 2008

1. Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep.by its Chairman, Port Area, Visakhapatnam

2. Cargo Handling Division,Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep.by its TrafficManager, Port Area,VisakhapatnamManager, Port Area,Visakhapatnam

...RESPONDENTS

PetitionunderArticle 226of theConstitutionofIndiaprayingthatin the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order ororders direction or directions to declaring the action of the respondentsinpaying the Gratuity at lesser rate to those employees[and][ workers][ of][ erstwhile]VisakhapatnamDockLabourBoard, whoretiredbetween26.9.2003and3.12.2011 under the Visakhapatnam Port Trust Gratuity Rules without payingas per the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board Gratuity Rules as illegal, andarbitrary, and unconstitutional and to issue a consequentialdirectionto therespondent reckon and pay the Gratuity to those Employees[and][ Workers][ of]

f

the Cargo Handling Division who retired between 26.9.2008 and 3.12.2011aser the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board Gratuity Rules.

iti"./3l A iNO: 1 OF 2012rWPMP. NO: 12360 OF•<

Petition under Section151 CPCprayingthatin the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Courtmaybe pleased to direct the respondent to reckonand pay the Gratuity to thoseEmployees and Workers of the Cargo Handling Divisionwho retired between26.9.2008 and 3.12.2011asper the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour BoardGratuity Rules, pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the PetitlonerSRI VEDULA SRINIVASCounsel for the Respondents No.1,2:SRI P SRIRAM (SC FOR THE VPTBOARD)

The Court made the following; ORDER

%

APHC010226832012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3457]

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

WRIT PETITION NO: 9777/2012Between:

M/s.visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board And Dock ...PETITIONER

AND

...RESPONDENT(S)

Visakhapatnam Port Trust Rep By ItsChairman and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:1.VEDULASRINIVAS

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.2. The Court made the following Order:

The petitioner union is challenging the denial of extending[the]gratuity as per the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board[(VDLB)]Gratuity Rules.The members of the petitioner union[were][ earlier]employees of the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board (VDLB).[The]VisakhapatnamDockLabourBoardwasmergedintotheVisakhapatnamPortTrust (VPT)witheffectfrom26.09.2008.

HN, J

Thereafter,all the workers whowere on the rules of VDLB weretreated as employees of VPT.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that VDLB

VDLBhadbeen extending gratuity at the rate of fifteen dayswage with piece-rate for every completed year of service rendered by the workers.However, the Visakhapatnam Port Trust has limited the service to33years.The VDLB gratuity regulationsdidnotrestrictthecessation of service and all employees who hadcompleted theirrespective service were paid gratuityasper the prevailing gratuityregulations.Howeveron account of the merger of VDLB with VPT,the gratuity regulations were restricted topayment of gratuity bylimiting service to 33 years. Any service beyond 33 years renderedby the petitioners would not be counted for the payment of gratuity.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner union addressedaletterdated 30.12.2011 to the Chairman of the respondents, seeking anexplanation of the gratuity regulations as followed by VDLB.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits thatthepetitioners till their service at VDLBwere paid gratuity as per theregulations and after merger of their service into VPT, the servicerestriction of 33 years has been implemented.It is also submittedthat the respondent authority, in their board of trustees meeting held f x HN, J

W.P.No.9777 2012

on24.02.2012,consideredtheissueof the adoptionofVPTpension and gratuity regulations for the cargo handling[division.]Assuch, claims that the members of the petitioner union[are][ entitled][ to]the same.

4. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondentssubmits that the members of the petitioner union were[entitled][ to]gratuity under the VDLB regulations till their service[at][ VDLB.]From26.09.2008,theirservicesmergedwith VPTandallserviceregulations of VPT were extended to the members of the petitionerunion.Itisalso submittedthat the claimof thepetitioner[for]extensionoftheerstwhilegratuityregulationsforallthoseemployees who retired between 26.09.2008 and 03.12.2011[cannot]beconsideredfor the simplereasonthat the membersof thepetitioner union were under the command and control[of][ VDLB][ after]26.09.2008.submits that the members of the petitioner union were[entitled][ to]gratuity under the VDLB regulations till their service[at][ VDLB.]From26.09.2008,theirservicesmergedwith VPTandallserviceregulations of VPT were extended to the members of the petitionerunion.Itisalso submittedthat the claimof thepetitioner[for]extensionoftheerstwhilegratuityregulationsforallthoseemployees who retired between 26.09.2008 and 03.12.2011[cannot]beconsideredfor the simplereasonthat the membersof thepetitioner union were under the command and control[of][ VDLB][ after]26.09.2008.

5. The attention of this Court is also drawn to paragraphs[4][ and]5 of the counter-affidavit anditis submitted that by virtue of theorder of the Chairman of the respondent dated 30.09.2008,[VDLB]employeesandworkersweretreatedas VPTemployeesandgratuityandpensionarybenefitswereextendedtoallthoseemployees as followed by VPT to its employees.5 of the counter-affidavit anditis submitted that by virtue of theorder of the Chairman of the respondent dated 30.09.2008,[VDLB]employeesandworkersweretreatedas VPTemployeesandgratuityandpensionarybenefitswereextendedtoallthoseemployees as followed by VPT to its employees.

4W.P.No.9777_2012

6. The issue of the extension of gratuity as was extended[byfhe]earlier employer cannot be continued to be extended[by][ the][ new]employer, as the pension and gratuity regulations followed[by][ the]newemployer would have to be extended to the employees[once]their services are merged. The VDLB gratuity rules[and][ regulations]would be merged with VPT’s gratuity and pensionary[regulations]soonafter the services are merged.The VDLB pension gratuityfundtrust wasalsodissolved andappropriateresolutionswerepassed by both the VDLB and fund trustin that regard,Thetrustees were also cancelled and the same was informedtotheincome tax authorities as well.

6.

7. In these circumstances,the claim of the petitioner seekingextensionofthegratuityandpensionrulesoftheerstwhileemployer,VDLB,cannotbeconsideredbythisCourtandadirection in that regard cannot be issued.

8. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.Thereshall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions,if any,shallstand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

cH/ P U V.BHASKARASsisTANT registrarfffSECTION OFFICER

To,VEDULA SRI NIVAS, Advocate [OPUC]VEDULA SRI NIVAS, Advocate [OPUC]

1. OneCCto SRI.

2. One CC to SRI. P. SRI RAM, Advocate (SC FOR VPT[BOARD)[OPU]]

3. Three C.D.Copies

nm

HIGH COURTDATED:21/01/2025

ORDERWP.No.9777 of 2012

DISMISING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS