The Act allows withholding of gratuity only under specific conditions outlined in S.4(6), 13, and 14, and refusal to surrender land cannot be a valid reason for withholding gratuity.

K. Narayana Kurup, J.

The third respondent was an employee of the petitioner-Company. He retired on superannuation on 19-6-1984. Since the petitioner refused to pay gratuity amount due to the third respondent he approached the second respondent Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for short 'the Act') for relief. Exhibit P1 is the order passed by the second respondent directing the petitioner to pay to the third respondent a sum of Rs. 1,4450.34 being the balance amount of gratuity due after adjusting a sum of Rs. 6,207.20 being the advance amount received by the third respondent. The petitioner took up Exhibit P1 in appeal before the first respondent, who by Exhibit P-2 confirmed Exhibit P1 rejecting the petitioner's appeal.

2. The thrust of the petitioner's contention before the respondents 1 and 2 was that the third respondent is entitled to get the gratuity amount only on final settlement of his account. What is treated by the petitioner-Company as failure to settle the account by the third respondent is the latter's failure to surrender possession of an extent of 30 cents of land which according to the petitioner-Company belongs to them and has been given to the third respondent under a licence and the third respondent is bound to surrender the same as and when directed to do so by the petitioner-Company. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated as follows :

3. 3rd respondent was working as a charge man in the petitioner company and has red on superannuation on 19-6-1984. 3rd respondent did not apply for licence for cultivating the portion of the properties belonging to the petitioner as alleged in the O.P. As the property in the possession of the 3rd respondent does not belong to the petitioner company, the question of surrender of the same does not arise at all. The petitioner company has no right, title or the authority over the property possessed by the 3rd respondent as the same is Attupuramboke. 3rd respondent was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property for the past more man 35 years and the tax receipts were also produced before respondents 1 and 2. Before the authorities below the contention of the petitioner company was that property was given on lease to the 3rd respondent and the extent allotted was 30 cents of land. 3rd respondent actually is in possession of 50 cents of property. The allegation was that the properly possessed by the 3rd respondent is covered by tide deeds. From the alleged title deed produced by the company and the tax receipts produced by the 3rd respondent it could be seen that the sub division and the survey number are different. That itself would show that the property possessed by 3rd respondent does not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner company produced before the authorities below certain documents including an agreement alleged to have been executed by 3rd respondent. 3rd respondent denied his signature in the agreement the documents are put up and documents and the signature of the 3rd respondent was forged. The petitioner company has no right, title of authority over the property possessed by the 3rd respondent".

3. Having regard to the rival contentions I am satisfied that the controversy between the parties involves adjudication of disputed question of fact relating to title, possession etc, to immovable property which cannot be effectively done in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to have recourse to appropriate remedies available to them under other forums.

4. That apart, the main question is whether the petitioner-company will be justified in withholding the gratuity amount due to the third respondent on the specious plea that the third respondent failed to surrender that land which is in occupation by him. The eligibility of the third respondent's gratuity has to be decided on the basis of the provisions contained in the Act, under