Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 533
High Court Of Calcutta
Amitava Lala
HINDUSTAN CABLES LTD., RUPNARAINPUR UNIT, P.O.HINDUSTAN CABLES, BURDWAN - Appellant
Versus
APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 - Respondent
W. P. 8171 (W) Of 2004
Decided On : 08/10/2004
DEBAPRASAD NATH, Narendra Kumar Mehta, Sajal Kanti Bhattacharya, Shankar Haider, SOUMYA MAJUMDAR
An employee who opts for voluntary retirement under a V.R.S. scheme and receives all his benefits cannot retain the company's quarters beyond the permissible period without vacating them. The employer is entitled to recover possession of the quarters and normal rent from the employee for the period of unauthorized occupation. The employee is not entitled to any interest on the gratuity amount for the period of unauthorized occupation of the quarters.
Headnote:
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME - RECOVERY OF AMOUNT - RETENTION OF COMPANY'S QUARTERS - GRATUITY PAYMENT - INTEREST ON GRATUITY - EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO OCCUPY QUARTERS AFTER RETIREMENT - LEGALITY OF PENAL RENT - INTERPRETATION OF V.R.S. SCHEME - APPLICABILITY OF CONTRACT ACT - DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOLUNTARY AND STATUTORY RETIREMENT - BALANCE BETWEEN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND EMPLOYER RIGHTS - WITHHOLDING OF GRATUITY FOR UNAUTHORIZED RETENTION OF QUARTERS - PAYMENT OF NORMAL RENT - WAIVER OF PENAL RENT - NO INTEREST ON GRATUITY DURING UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION.
Fact of the Case:
The employee opted for voluntary retirement under a V.R.S. scheme and received all his benefits, including provident fund and gratuity deposited by the employer with the appropriate authority. However, the employee continued to occupy the company's quarters beyond the permissible period without vacating them, despite having an alternative accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the employee's retention of the company's quarters was unauthorized and illegal, and that the employer was entitled to recover possession of the quarters and normal rent from the employee. The court further held that the employee was not entitled to any interest on the gratuity amount for the period of unauthorized occupation of the quarters.
Issues: 1. Whether an employee who has opted for voluntary retirement and received all his benefits can retain the company's quarters beyond the permissible period without vacating them? 2. Whether the employer is entitled to recover possession of the quarters and normal rent from the employee for the period of unauthorized occupation? 3. Whether the employee is entitled to interest on the gratuity amount for the period of unauthorized occupation of the quarters?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the V.R.S. scheme was a contractual arrangement between the employer and the employee, and that the employee was bound by the terms and conditions of the scheme. The scheme provided for a specific period of occupation of the company's quarters after retirement, and the employee's continued occupation beyond that period was a breach of contract. 2. The court held that the employer was entitled to recover possession of the quarters from the employee as the employee's occupation was unauthorized and illegal. The employer was also entitled to recover normal rent from the employee for the period of unauthorized occupation. 3. The court held that the employee was not entitled to any interest on the gratuity amount for the period of unauthorized occupation of the quarters. The gratuity amount had been deposited by the employer with the appropriate authority, and the employee's unauthorized occupation of the quarters did not entitle him to any additional benefits.
Final Decision: The court directed the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Asansol to receive the gratuity amount from the controlling authority and pay it to the employee within one month from the date of communication of the order, simultaneously with the recovery of possession of the quarters from the employee. The employer was entitled to recover normal rent from the employee for the period of unauthorized occupation, but the penal rent was waived by the court. The employee was not entitled to any interest on the gratuity amount.
( 1 ) A short point is involved in this writ petition. The point is that even after recovery of the amount by the respondent No. 3-applicant/employee as per the terms and conditions of the contract for voluntary retirement, can he restrain the company's quarter beyond the period of two years without leave as a special case on payment of normal rent or not. The need of such retention of the company's quarters is not reflected from any of such documents particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner is admittedly residing at a different place at 26, Padmapukur Road, P. O. Fingapara, Dist. 24-Parganas (North ). The description of such address is given by the respondent No. 3-applicant/employee in the affidavit to support his vacating application being CAN No. 6085/2004 of his own. Under such circumstances, a question arose as regards payment of interest on the gratuity amount to be paid to the petitioner or not. The petitioner recovered his Provident Fund dues to the tune of Rs. 3,01,368/ -. He also recovered his V. R. S. amount of Rs. 4,25,242/ -. So far as the gratuity amount is concerned, the same has been deposited by the company by an order of the competent authority or by an order of the appellate authority. The question before this court is that as to whether such amount can be released by the authority without vacating the quarter which has been illegally withheld by the concerned employee or not, as against the claim of the respondent No. 3-applicant/employee in respect of the gratuity along with interest. Initially, an interim order was passed by this Court protecting the interest of the company and the respondent no. 3-applicant/employee filed an application for vacating the interim order by making an independent application thereunder. Therefore, both the applications can be treated as writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition for the sake of finality of the writ petition.
( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, a proposal has been given by the company to the respondent No. 3-applicant/employee in the Court itself that upon satisfaction of the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C), Asansol and the controlling Authority as regards handing over the possession of the quarter, the gratuity amount of Rs. 1,36,005/- will be released in favour of the respondent no. 3/employee. A difference of excess amount in favour of the company of Rs. 23,970a was directed to be withdrawn. The petitioner will pay the normal rent from 1st April, 1999 till handing over the possession. As regards waiver of penal rent, the respondent No. 3-applicant/employee will make a representation to the authority concerned to consider the same sympathetically. But I find that the attitude of the respondent No. 3-employee is not a well-coming attitude before the Court of equity even after it is fallen from the Court that no proceeding as regards recovery of penal rent will be proceeded against the petitioner. Being the poorer section of the people, he contended that the payment of gratuity cannot be betrayed and, if at all withheld, the same will be paid along with the interest irrespective of the fact whether he is occupying the Governmental premises after expiry of the period or not. He says that he is not agreeable with any proposal. His right will be determined by the Court of Law.
( 3 ) MR. Narendra Kr. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner cited various judgments as also the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3-applicant/employee. The appropriate conclusion will come out on the basis of the analysis of such judgments. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner first of all cited a judgment reported in 2000 (11) scc 572, Vice-Chair man and Managing Director, AP SIDC Ltd. and Anr. vs. R. Varaprasad and Ors. , to establish before this Court that the V. R. S. scheme cannot be equitted with the regular retirement. No employee can make a claim contrary to the terms and conditions of the volunt
