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
Mohinder Singh - Respondent
W.P.(C) 15457 of 2022
Decided On : 10-11-2022




The court emphasized the employee's right to claim gratuity if they meet eligibility criteria, affirming that appeal rights exist despite procedural limitations.

Headnote:(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - The authority permitted the respondent's claim for gratuity, leading to directed payment of Rs.1,08,988/- with interest - Petitioner contended errors in accounting for service duration on muster roll and limitations on appeal. (Paras 1, 2)

(B) Appeal - Petitioner granted liberty to appeal, delay condoned upon timely filing, with stay on recovery proceedings until then. (Paras 6, 7)

(C) Litigation Expenses - Petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- for litigation costs. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
Writ petition challenges a Controlling Authority's order granting gratuity to a workman during muster roll employment.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner's right to appeal recognized; payment of gratuity confirmed.

Issues: Whether gratuity claim is valid for muster roll periods, and limitations on appellate authority's jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Court identifies lawful remedy through appeal; emphasizes employee rights while ensuring procedural adherence.

Result: Petition disposed of favorably for the respondent.

Table of Content
1. challenge of order under payment of gratuity act. (Para 1)
2. error in gratuity payment for muster roll period. (Para 2)
3. procedural guidance for appeal and stay of recovery. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. litigation expenses awarded and petition disposal. (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 48026/2022, CM APPL. 48027/2022 CM APPL. 48028/2022

CM APPL. 48029/2022 (exemptions)

Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 15457/2022 & CM APPL.48025/2022 (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.1,08,988/- 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