Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1079
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Tulsidas P. Rajpara and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
Dhoraji Nagarpalika – Respondent
Special Civil Application Nos. 6480, 2621 of 2001, 8785, 11626, 11629, 11630 of 2000, 837, 964, 1561, 4438, 4439, 4999, 5039, 6400, 8822 of 2001, 2019 of 2002 and 6678 of 2004
Decided On : 01-07-2016
For the Appellant :M.D. Rana, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Premal R. Joshi, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of retired employees to interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, based on the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Headnote:
Retired Employees - Payment of Retiral Dues - Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 - Section 406 of IPC - Interest on Delayed Payment
Fact of the Case:
The writ applicants, retired employees of Dhoraji Nagarpalika, sought payment of retiral dues including Gratuity, Provident Fund, and benefits of the Earned Leave. The Nagarpalika had a history of irregularities and illegalities in the administration, as reflected in previous court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Nagarpalika had failed to make timely payments to its retired employees, despite the employees being entitled to receive their retiral benefits. The court directed the Nagarpalika to calculate and pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum to each of the writ applicants within six months.
Issues: Delayed payment of retiral dues, irregularities in administration, entitlement to interest on delayed payment
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the retired employees were entitled to interest on the delayed payment of their retiral benefits, citing the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The court emphasized the obligation of the Nagarpalika to make timely payments and condemned the irregularities and illegalities in its administration.
Final Decision: The court disposed of all the writ applications with a direction to the Dhoraji Nagarpalika to calculate and pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum to each of the writ applicants within six months.
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned writ applications are more or less the same those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The writ applicants before me are all retired employees of the Dhoraji Nagarpalika. It is the case of the applicants that they all were working as the Octroi Clerks. They have not been paid their retiral dues like Gratuity, Provident Fund, Difference of the 5th Pay Commission and benefit of the Earned Leave. They all have prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction in this regard to the Nagarpalika.
3. I take notice of the fact that the history of this litigation is quite checkered. In Special Civil Application No. 871 of 1988 filed by the Bhartiya Mazdur Sangh for appropriate directions upon the Dhoraji Municipality and its Chief Officer to make payment of the salaries due to its employees, the learned Single Judge of this Court had to pass a very strong order reflecting sorry state of affairs of the Municipality. I may quote the observations made by the Court as under:-
"In the matter where the salaries are not regularly paid to the employees they may have an efficacious alternative remedy to approach to the payment of the wages authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. It is not the case of the petitioners or the respondents that that remedy is not available to the employees of the municipalities. Under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 the adequate efficacious remedy is available to the employees where employer is not making payment of salary to employees regularly. The power has been conferred upon the authority also where it is satisfied that without there being any justification or deliberately payment of the salary is withheld of employees the damages to the employees to the extent of 100% of the amount of the wages or salary withheld can be awarded. This petition has been filed by the Union/Association of the employees and being an association of employees it has another alternative remedy to raise industrial dispute in the service matter and this is certainly a service matter. It is difficult to appreciate a petition by employees union or association which can raise an industrial dispute or can approach the Payment of Wages Authority for such dispute. Before the Payment of Wages authority the employees can file a joint petition also and reference here may have to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act aforesaid. Be that as it may. So far as to the grievance of the petitioner against the respondent municipality not paying salaries to its employees it no more now survives as in pursuance to the interim orders which have been passed by this court from time to time the unpaid salaries has already been paid to the employees. From the affidavit of the petitioner also it no more remains in doubt that outstanding salaries or withheld salaries have been paid to the employees. From pleadings of the parties i.e. in the affidavit of the petitioner copy of which is there on the file of Civil Application No. 2361 of 1999 the dispute may be there for nonpayment of salaries up to the month of July, 1999 but no further affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to show that the municipality is not regularly paying the salary to the employees. In fact this petition to the extent grievance made therein for nonpayment of salaries to the employees of the municipality and members of the petitioner does not survive.
So far as the prayer made to deposit the entire amount of arrears of Provident Fund contribution deducted from the employees' salary and also to deposit the bank loan deducted from salaries of the employees to their respective accounts is concerned this grievance survives. The respondent municipality admitted that a sum of Rs. 3,57,65,317/- is to be deposited by it under the head of Employees' Provident Fund.
