Workers Paid Gratuity Under Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Act Can't Claim Benefit Under Payment Of Gratuity Act: Kerala High Court

Justice Basant Balaji held that Abkari workers and regular Corporation workers come under different classes since Abkari workers do not come under the definition of 'employee' under the Gratuity Act.

“As discussed earlier, when the Abkari workers form a separate class of workers, and the regular employees are separate ones, the Abkari workers who are getting gratuity from the Welfare Fund cannot claim gratuity under the Gratuity Act, over and above the amounts received under the KAWWF Act. If the argument of the petitioners is accepted, it will amount to double payment of gratuity, one under the Welfare Fund and the other under the Gratuity Act, which will be unlawful enrichment. Therefore, these Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed”, stated the Court.

The Court was considering whether Abkari workers employed with the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing And Marketing) Corporation were entitled to gratuity under the Gratuity Act when they were paid gratuity and provident fund under the KAWWF Act. 

The petitioners contended that they were paid gratuity from the contribution fund under the KAWWF Act on superannuation. They claim that were also eligible to get gratuity from the Corporation under Rule 76 of the Service Rules for the Employees of the Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd. They contended that the Government has not exempted Abkari workers from the definition of 'employees' under the Gratuity Act and were entitled to gratuity as in the case of other regular employees of the Corporation.

The Court stated that Abkari workers were paid gratuity from the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund under the KAWWF Act. It also stated that a separate procedure was followed under the Kerala Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Scheme, 1990 for calculating gratuity for Abkari workers.

Further, the Court stated that as per the definition of 'employee' under the Gratuity Act, persons who were governed under other Acts or Rules for providing payment of gratuity would not come under 'employee'.

As such, it stated that the petitioners being Abkari workers have received gratuity and provident funds under the scheme of the KAWWF Act and were not entitled to claim gratuity under the Gratuity Act since that would amount to double enrichment.

Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petitions.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocate Deepu Thankan

Counsel for Respondents: Standing Counsels T Naveen, S Krishnamoorthy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 234

Case title: Shankara Narayanan P A v Kerala State Beverages (M And M) Corporation Ltd & Connected cases

Case number: WP(C) NO. 36325 OF 2022 & Connected cases

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment