Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.M. Thaker, J.
Saladi Doodh Utpadhak Sahakari Mandli Ltd. - Appellants
Vs.
Niruben Ramabhai Prajapati and Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 2153 of 2011
Decided On : 08-08-2016
For the Appellant :Varun K. Patel, Advocate
For the Respondent:P.H. Pathak, Advocate
The necessity of relevant documents and details to establish actual payment to the employee, emphasizing the process of payment through cheque and the authority's jurisdiction to probe further into the payment details.
Headnote:
Payment of Gratuity Act - Disputed Gratuity Payment - 1972 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - The court discussed the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, particularly focusing on the payment of gratuity and the authority's jurisdiction to probe further into the payment details. The court emphasized the need for clarity and supporting material to establish actual payment to the employee, highlighting the process of payment through cheque and the necessity of relevant documents and details to remove doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cooperative society, challenged two orders passed by the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, regarding the payment of gratuity to an employee who had resigned and subsequently died. The controlling authority and appellate authority declined to accept the employer's claim that the gratuity amount was paid to the employee, citing doubts about the payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the orders and remanded the case to the controlling authority, emphasizing the need for clarity and supporting material to establish actual payment to the employee. The court highlighted the process of payment through cheque and the necessity of relevant documents and details to remove doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the disputed payment of gratuity to the employee, the authority's jurisdiction to probe further into the payment details, and the need for clarity and supporting material to establish actual payment to the employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of relevant documents and details to remove doubt about the payment, highlighting the process of payment through cheque and the authority's jurisdiction to probe further into the payment details.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders and remanded the case to the controlling authority, allowing both parties to lead necessary evidence and directing the controlling authority to pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with the law.
K.M. Thaker, J.
1. Heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Ms. Kamani, learned advocate for Mr. Pathak, learned advocate for the respondent - employee.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:-
"5(a) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside judgment and order dated 29-12-2010 passed by the Respondent No. 3 - the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeal No. 25/2010 (Annexure-A) and the judgment and order dated 28-5-2009 passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Application No. JTC/26/2008 (Annexure-B);
2.1 The petitioner is a cooperative society and it has brought under challenge two orders passed by the authorities appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 i.e. the order passed by the controlling authority and the order passed by the appellate authority whereby the appellate authority rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the controlling authority.
3. From the facts of the case and from submissions by learned counsel for the contesting parties, it has emerged that on 25.3.2008, the claimant before the controlling authority tendered resignation from service with the employer. It appears that, at the relevant time, the employee was working as a secretary with the society and by letter of resignation dated 25.3.2008, he informed the society that he intends to be relieved w.e.f. 31.3.2008. The resignation was accepted by the competent authority and the employee was relieved from service w.e.f. 31.3.2008.
3.1 In the letter of resignation, the employee had requested the society to pay gratuity and provident fund amount.
3.2 According to the petitioner society, the amount payable towards gratuity was calculated and the employee was found to be eligible for Rs. 56,700/- towards gratuity. Accordingly, on 15.5.2008 the said amount i.e. Rs. 56,700/- was paid to the claimant vide cheque No. 10081 under voucher No. 72. The petitioner society has also claimed that on the same day i.e. on 15.5.2008, the employee had acknowledged the receipt of the said cheque for Rs. 56,700/- (typed copy of the receipt is placed on record of the petition at page No. 26).
3.3 From the record, it appears that according to the record of the society, the employee was entitled for Rs. 97,747.06 towards provident fund. The said amount was paid to the claimant vide cheque No. 10101 under voucher No. 71.
According to the petitioner society, the said amount towards provident fund was also paid to the claimant on the same day i.e. on 15.5.2008 and he had executed receipt acknowledging the payment.
3.4 It appears that within two or three days after the payment of the above mentioned amount, the employee died.
Subsequently, the heir (widow) of the employee filed gratuity claim application before the controlling authority. The controlling authority examined the records. It appears from the record that apart from the receipts executed by the employee, the controlling authority seems to have closely examined employee's pass book and on such examination, the controlling authority found that Rs. 56,700/- was deposited in the employee's account on 15.5.2008 but the authority also noticed that said amount withdrawn on the same day.
3.5 In light of the entry of withdrawal of the amount on the same day, some doubt crept in the controlling authority's mind and that therefore, the controlling authority declined to accept the employer's claim that the amount was paid to the employee.
In paragraph No. 6 of his order, the controlling authority has observed that the entry is recorded in the pass book of the employee but simultaneously there is entry reflecting withdrawal of the same amount and therefore, it appears that actually the amount does not seem to have come in the hands of the employee.
It appears that the controlling author
