SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Public Works Department - Appellant
Versus
Bhagwati - Respondent
W.P.(C) 15409 of 2022
Decided On : 10-11-2022




The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act is bound by limitation periods and must adjudicate appeals filed timely, while the inclusion of muster roll periods in gratuity calculations is subject to scrutiny.

Headnote:(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Order of Controlling Authority - The petitioner challenged the order dated 06th December, 2021, which directed payment of gratuity of Rs.2,26,176/- with interest, claiming error for including periods as a muster roll employee. The petitioner was granted liberty to appeal, and the delay was condoned. (Paras 1, 6, 7)

(B) Limitation - The Appellate Authority is not empowered to condone a delay beyond 120 days from receipt of the order. (Para 2)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order directing gratuity payment including periods of muster roll employment, asserting that such periods should not qualify for gratuity calculations.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner was allowed to file an appeal, with recovery proceedings stayed until the appeal's decision and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- were ordered.

Issues: The primary issue was the validity of gratuity payments for periods of muster roll employment and the limitation for appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner has the right to appeal, and the timeline for such appeal must be adhered to, affirming the Authority's jurisdiction regarding delay in appeals.

Result: Petition disposed of.

Table of Content
1. gratuity claim issued by controlling authority. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's claim of error regarding gratuity payment. (Para 2)
3. procedural directives for filing appeal and stay of recovery. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. petitioner to bear litigation costs and conclusion of petition. (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 47875/2022, CM APPL. 47876/2022 CM APPL. 47877/2022

CM APPL. 47878/2022 (exemptions)

Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 15409/2022 & CM APPL.47874/2022 (stay)

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06th December, 2021 passed by the learned Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 vide which the claim application of respondent No.1 has been allowed and petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.2,26,176/- with simple interest @ 10% per annum in favour of respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Controlling Authority has fallen into an error by making the order for payment of gratuity even for the period when the respondent workman was only on a muster roll. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the matter could not be challenged before the Appellate Authority within the period of limitation. It has been further submitted that the Appellate Authority is not empowered to condone the delay beyond the total period of 120 days from the date of receipt of the order.

3. Issue notice.

4. Mr. Manoj Joshi, Advocate, who appears through video conferencing, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Ms. Rachita Garg, Advocate, who appears through video conferencing, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that in identical facts, matters have been relegated back to the Appellate Authority to decide the same in accordance with the law.

6. In view of the submissions made, the petitioner-department is granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority in accordance with law within the period of four weeks. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

7. The Appellate Authority shall entertain the appeal if filed on or before 11th December, 2022 and shall decide the same in accordance with the law. Till 11th December, 2022, the recovery proceeding shall remain stayed. In case, the petitioner fails to file the appeal on or before 11th December, 2022 before the Appellate Authority in accordance with law, the respondent shall be at liberty to initiate recovery proceeding against the petitioner- department.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has pressed for litigation expenses. Following the precedents, the petitioner-department shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent No.1 within four weeks.

9. With these observations, the present petition along with pending application stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top