IMPORTANT POINT
A secured creditor cannot be deemed an employer under the Payment of Gratuity Act, thus exempting them from the pre-deposit requirement for appealing a gratuity claim.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. Thakker, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.U.T Mishra waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.3.

2. The present petitions are arising out of identical issue and therefore, a common order is passed. The facts of the SCA No.10607 of 2024 are taken for consideration.

3. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Vadodara under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 rejecting the waiver application filed by the present petitioner regarding depositing the requisite amount of gratuity as awarded by the learned Controlling Authority.

3.1. The facts enumerated in the present petition is that petitioner company is registered as Asset Reconstruction Company with RBI under the provisions of section 3 of SARFAESI Act and respondent No.4 had availed loan facilities from various banks including ICICI Bank, Central Bank of India, Development Credit Bank, State Bank of India, Industrial Development Bank, Union Trust of India etc. Respondent no.4 and its obligatory failed to comply with the repayment of obligation and therefore, loan account was classified as non-performing assets by the original lenders in accordance with the guidelines issued by the RBI. Subsequently, the original lenders assigned the loan account along with security interest, guarantee, title and interest arising out of the same in favour of the petitioner vide multiple register assignment agreement and thereby, the present petitioner has authorized to recovery outstanding dues owned by the respondent no.4.

3.2. In addition to the above obligations, the petitioner has also sanctioned additional loan of Rs.10,00,00,000/- to respondent no.4 as a part of reconstruction of its extension unit. Respondent no.4 executed various loan documents in furtherance of the same and due to non payment of outstanding dues the proceedings were initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai. The respondent no. 4 had approached the petitioner for settlement of dues with a request letter on 04.09.2021 which was accepted by the present petitioner for the payment of Rs.30,15,00,000/-. The settlement sanction letter was issued on 15.09.2021 and thereafter, the account of the respondent No. 4 is closed and petitioner has issued No Due Certificate on 12.10.2021. The respondent No. 3 filed application No. 286 of 2023 under the Payment of Gratuity Act against the respondent No. 4, 5 and the present petitioner before the learned Controlling Authority. Out of the above respondents, only the petitioner appeared before the learned Controlling Authority and submitted his reply stating that no order can be passed against the present petitioner as the present petitioner was secured creditor of respondent no.4 and not responsible for the alleged dues of respondent no.4. As respondent No. 3 has taken over the charge of respondent No. 4 no application or no relief can be prayed against the present petitioner. Learned Controlling Authority after hearing the parties has allowed the application vide order dated 30.03.2024 directing all the respondents including the petitioner to pay amount of gratuity of Rs.58,253/- within 30 days along with simple interest of 10% per annum. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority challenging the above order along with application of waiver of deposit of amount. Learned appellate authority after hearing the parties has rejected the application seeking waiver of pre-deposit vide order dated 18.06.2024 which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.G.M.Joshi with learned advocate Mr.Anip Gandhi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the respondent.

4.1. Learned senior advocate Mr.G.M.Joshi submits that learned Controlling Authority and the learned appellate authority has passed an order without considering the fact that there