IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 9777 OF 2012 Between: M/s.Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board and Dock, Workers Union, Dharma Shakti Bhavan, Near Reading Room Visakhapatnam,rep.by its General Secretary S.Parasuram ...PETITIONER AND 1. Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep.by its Chairman, Port Area, Visakhapatnam 2. Cargo Handling Division,Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep.by its Traffic Manager, Port Area,Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or orders direction or directions to declaring the action of the respondents in paying the Gratuity at lesser rate to those employees and workers of erstwhile Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board, who retired between 26.9.2003 and 3.12.2011 under the Visakhapatnam Port Trust Gratuity Rules without paying as per the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board Gratuity Rules as illegal, and arbitrary, and unconstitutional and to issue a consequential direction to the respondent reckon and pay the Gratuity to those Employees and Workers of f the Cargo Handling Division who retired between 26.9.2008 and 3.12.2011 er the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board Gratuity Rules. as it ■ i" • ' ./ 3 l A iNO: 1 OF 2012rWPMP. NO: 12360 OF •< Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court be pleased to direct the respondent to reckon may and pay the Gratuity to those Employees and Workers of the Cargo Handling Division who retired between 26.9.2008 and 3.12.2011 per the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board as Gratuity Rules, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the PetitlonerSRI VEDULA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2:SRI P SRI BOARD) RAM (SC FOR THE VPT The Court made the following; ORDER % APHC010226832012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3457] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 9777/2012 Between: M/s.visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board And Dock ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Visakhapatnam Port Trust Rep By Its Chairman and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VEDULASRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. 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 Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board was merged into the Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) with effect from 26.09.2008. HN, J W.P.No.9777 2012 2 Thereafter, all the workers who treated as employees of VPT. were on the rules of VDLB were 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that VDLB been extending gratuity at the rate of fifteen days had wage with piece- rate for every completed year of service rendered by the workers. However, the Visakhapatnam Port Trust has limited the service to 33 years. The VDLB gratuity regulations did cessation of service and all employees who had not restrict the completed their respective service were paid gratuity regulations. However the gratuity regulations were restricted to per the prevailing gratuity as on account of the merger of VDLB with VPT, payment of gratuity by limiting service to 33 years. Any service beyond 33 years rendered by the petitioners would not be counted for the payment of gratuity. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner union addressed a letter dated 30.12.2011 to the Chairman of the respondents, seeking an explanation of the gratuity regulations as followed by VDLB. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioners till their service at VDLB the were paid gratuity as per the regulations and after merger of their service into VPT, the service restriction of 33 years has been implemented. It is also submitted that the respondent authority, in their board of trustees meeting held f HN, J W.P.No.9777 2012 3 x on 24.02.2012, considered the issue of the adoption of VPT pension and gratuity regulations for the cargo handling division. As such, claims that the members of the petitioner union are entitled to the same. 4. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the members of the petitioner union were entitled to gratuity under the VDLB regulations till their service at VDLB. From 26.09.2008, their services merged with VPT and all service regulations of VPT were extended to the members of the petitioner It is also submitted that the claim of the petitioner for union. extension of the erstwhile gratuity regulations for all those employees who retired between 26.09.2008 and 03.12.2011 cannot be considered for the simple reason that the members of the petitioner 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 and it is submitted that by virtue of the order of the Chairman of the respondent dated 30.09.2008, VDLB employees and workers were treated as VPT employees and gratuity and pensionary benefits were extended to all those employees as followed by VPT to its employees. HN, J W.P.No.9777_2012 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 employer 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 after the services are merged. The VDLB pension gratuity fund trust was also dissolved and appropriate resolutions were passed by both the VDLB and fund trust in that regard, trustees were also cancelled and the same was informed to the income tax authorities as well. 4 6. new soon The In these circumstances, the claim of the petitioner seeking extension of the gratuity and pension rules of the erstwhile employer, VDLB, cannot be considered by this Court and a direction in that regard cannot be issued. 7. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. There 8. shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. cH/ P U V.BHASKAR ASsisTANT registrar fff SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 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 COURT DATED:21/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.9777 of 2012 DISMISING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS