THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 IS A SELF-CONTAINED CODE AND ALL CLAIMS/DISPUTES ARISING UNDER THE SAID ACT HAVE TO BE ADJUDICATED BEFORE THE AUTHORITY CONSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE.

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions common question of law arises for consideration and, therefore, they are taken up for hearing and disposal together.

( 2 ) ALL the petitioners herein have retired on 31-10-1996 under the Voluntary retirement Scheme (for short vrs ) formulated by the respondent-Company. It is their specific case that they are entitled to receive gratuity amounts as per Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the Act ) read with rule 7 of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 (for short the Rules ), on the date of retirement itself. It is stated that the respondent-Company failed topay the gratuity amount on the date of retirement itself and paid the amount in the month of April, 1997, though they have retired in the month of October, 1996. Under those circumstances, the petitioners claim interest at the rate of 24% per annum. It is stated that the inaction and negligence on the part of the respondent-Company in paying the gratuity amount had caused financial problems and inconvenience to the petitioners. There is no justification on the part of the respondent-Company for the delayed payment. It is stated that inspite of representations, the respondent-Company failed to pay interest. Hence the writ petition.

( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit it is stated that the company is passing through a grave financial situation and with great difficulty the company is able to raise necessary finance to meet its day-to-day expenditure. The company is not even in a position to disburse the salaries to those who are in employment as on to-day. The company is facing critical financial condition and, therefore, could not meet its obligation of paying gratuity amount to some of the employees, who had retired from service in time. The company, however, made its efforts to release gratuity to the employees who had retired from service in a phased manner as and when it could generate necessary amounts. Under those circumstances there was some delay in payment of amounts to the petitioners.

( 4 ) THE respondent-Company raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners have to get their claims adjudicated under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Act provides for adjudication of the claims by the controlling Authority. An appeal is provided against an order passed by the controlling Authority. The Payment of Gratuity Act is a self contained Code and all the claims/disputes arising under the said Act have to be adjudicated before the Authority constituted for the purpose.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners would urge that it is the bounden duty of the company to pay the gratuity amount within thirty days from the date it becomes payable and the amount, itself, becomes payable as on the date of retirement. The petitioners are entitled for interest as a matter or right for the delayed payments by the company. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would place reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in r. Kapur vs. Director of Inspection and an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ch. Sarath Chandra Bose vs. M/s. HMT.

( 6 ) IT is true as held by the Apex Court in R. Kapur vs. Director of Inspection and State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair the Pension and Gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the employer to its employees on their retirement, but valuable right and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with penalty of payment of interest. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of ch. Sarat Chandra Bose awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum by modifying the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court awarding interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

( 7 ) IT is required to notice that in none of the said decisions the question relating to the maintainability of a writ petition wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document