The appropriate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for establishments with branches in multiple states is the Central Government, rendering state authority's jurisdiction invalid.

JUDGMENT :

SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, seeking quashing and setting aside of the Order dated 10.12.2014 (hereinafter ‘Impugned order I’) passed by the Controlling Authority (hereinafter ‘CA’) appointed by the Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi, and the Order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the learned Appellate Authority (hereinafter ‘Impugned order II’) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) holding that the Respondent No. 3/Claimant is entitled and management is liable to pay Rs.1,55,769/- (One lakh fifty-five thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine only) being the amount of gratuity along with interest at 10% P.A. from the date of resignation i.e. 01.03.2013 till the date of actual payment of the said amount.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The Petitioner company is a body corporate, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at B-61/3, Jagat Puri, Delhi-110051 and its Head Office at C-116, SECTOR 10, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh. The Petitioner is, inter-alia, engaged in the manufacture of Automatic Data Processing machines and units, as well as in the development of Information Technology software.

3. Respondent No. 3/Claimant was employed with the Petitioner company since 1994 in the capacity of System Executive. The last drawn wages being Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month, along with other benefits paid from time to time by the Management.

4. After working for around 20 years, Respondent No. 3/Claimant resigned from the services of the Petitioner/Company with effect from 01.03.2013. Subsequent to his resignation, certain communications took place between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 /Claimant concerning the terms and conditions of service and completion of post-resignation formalities.

5. Respondent No. 3, by way of the aforesaid communications/letters, requested the Company to release the gratuity amount along with some dues to which he was entitled. However, the Company denied all such claims, including the claim for gratuity, in their entirety, contending that the Respondent had neither served the requisite notice period nor complied with the other conditions of resignation and, therefore, was not entitled to gratuity or to any other payment whatsoever. In pursuance to which, Respondent No. 3 /Claimant filed an Application under Sec. 7(4) of the Act before the CA, Delhi, wherein he claimed a sum of Rs.1,64,423/- towards gratuity, along with other alleged dues such as salary and conveyance allowance. In the said application, it was averred that Respondent No. 3 had been employed with the Petitioner since 1994 and had resigned from service on 01.03.2013.

6. In response thereto, the Petitioner herein, filed a preliminary objection to the said application, specifically challenging the jurisdiction of the CA. Thereafter, evidence(s) were led by the Management as well as on behalf of the claimant. The CA on the basis of the pleadings and evidence(s) led by the parties framed the following issue for consideration:

“1. Whether the matter is under jurisdiction of this Court?

2. Whether claimant Shri Shiv Narayan Pandey is entitled for payment of Gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act. 1972 and if yes, to-what relief, is he entitled and what direction(s) are necessary in this respect?”

7. Consequently, the CA vide ‘Impugned order I’ held that it was the competent authority in the present case and therefo