IMPORTANT POINT
The Payment of Gratuity Act allows claims for both statutory and contractual gratuity to be adjudicated under the same authority, ensuring employee rights are protected.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep V. Marne, J.) :

1) Petitioner-employer has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-Industrial Court, Pune allowing Appeal PGA No. 25 of 2022 filed by Respondent and setting aside Controlling Authority’s order dated 19 September 2022. The Controlling Authority had held Application (PGA) No.13/2015 filed by Respondent to be not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. While setting aside the order of the Controlling Authority, the Appellate Authority has held the Application (PGA) No.13/2015 to be maintainable and within the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority. Accordingly, the Controlling Authority has been directed to decide the remaining issues based on oral and documentary evidence already led by the parties. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority holding Application (PGA) No.13/2015 to be maintainable and within the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority, Petitioner-employer has filed the present petition.

2) The Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing automobiles ancillaries. Respondent has functioned as managing director of the petitioner-company. he came to be appointed as managing director of the company vide Managing Director’s Agreement dated 31 July 2005 on various terms and conditions stipulated therein. Clause-B(k) of Annexure-B to the Agreement provided for payment of gratuity to Respondent at expiration of the Agreement computed at one half months’ basic salary for each completed year of service. It appears that upon expiration of term of the initial agreement dated 31 July 2005, a fresh Managing Director’s Agreement was executed on 15 July 2009 re-appointing Respondent as Managing Director for a fresh tenure of four years. Thereafter, further Managing Director’s Agreement was executed on 24 July 2013 once again reappointing the Respondent as Managing Director for further period of 2 years. As per the Agreement dated 24 July 2013, gratuity was payable at the rate of two months last drawn salary plus House Rent Allowance for each completed year of service. It appears that Respondent tendered resignation on 4 May 2015 from the position of Managing Director and his tenure came to an end.

3) Respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 1,13,00,000/- towards gratuity. Petitioner thereafter computed the amount of gratuity payable to Respondent in accordance with Managing Director’s Agreement at Rs. 35,28,904/- and after deducting tax, net amount of Rs.26,53,699/- was paid to the Respondent vide cheque dated 6 August 2015. By letter dated 19 August 2015, Respondent claimed balance amount of gratuity of Rs.77,71,096/-, which was denied by the Petitioner.

4) In the above background, Respondent filed Application (PGA) No.13/2015 before the Controlling Authority-cum-Labour Court, Pune for payment of balance gratuity of Rs.77,71,096/-. Petitioner resisted the application by filing written statement. Both the parties led evidence.

5) By judgment and order dated 19 September 2022, the Controlling Authority answered Issue No. 1A about maintainability of the application, as well as Issue No.2 about jurisdiction in the negative holding that rest of the issues were rendered redundant. The Controlling Authority therefore held the application to be not maintainable for want of jurisdiction by its order dated 19 September 2022.

6) Respondent preferred Appeal No. 25 of 2022 before the Appellate Authority-cum-Industrial Court, which has allowed the Appeal answering Issue Nos. 1A and 2 in the affirmative holding that the application is maintainable and that the Controlling Authority has jurisdiction to decide the same. Petitioner is challenging order dated 8 May 2024 passed by the Appellate Authority in the present petition.

7) I have heard Mr. Jalisatgi learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed by him. The main objection raised by the Petitioner to the or