The term 'amount equal to the amount of gratuity' under the Payment of Gratuity Act includes both gratuity and accrued interest for pre-deposit required to admit an appeal.

JUDGMENT :

K. Babu, J.

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 , in I.A.No.10/2024 in GA No.42/2023 ('the Act' for short) whereby the petitioner-employer was directed to deposit the amount of gratuity determined by the Controlling Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act.

2. The question that arises for consideration is whether the phrase in the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act — 'an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited' — includes the entire amount directed to be paid under sub-section 4(c) of Section 7 of the Act, as a condition precedent for admitting the appeal.

3. I have heard Smt. Pooja Menon, the learned counsel representing Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Mathew P. Babu— respondent No.1 (party-in-person) and Sri. K.M. Firoz, the learned Amicus Curiae.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act mandates only the deposit of the ‘gratuity amount’ as a condition precedent for admitting the appeal. It is submitted that the Statute does not mandate that the interest accrued to the amount due to the employee as gratuity is required to be paid as pre- deposit. The learned counsel has taken me to the various sub-sections of Section 7 of the Act to substantiate her contentions. The learned counsel relied on Standard Stonewares and Tiles v. Appellate Authority [2004 (2) KLT 519] to buttress her submissions. The learned Counsel made an attempt to distinguish the ratio of the decisions of this Court in BL Rubber Industries Private Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Khurana [WP(C) No.21488 of 2013], Managing Director, (COIRFED) v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) [2015 KHC 192] and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) [MANU/KE/0224/2020] and submitted that the observation in those decisions by co-ordinate Benches of this Court that the amount required to be deposited under the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 7 would be the amount adjudicated upon with interest thereon, is hit by the principle of per incuriam.

5. The learned Amicus Curiae has taken me to various statutory provisions. The learned Amicus Curiae brought to my notice the phrases, ‘amount of gratuity’, ‘any amount’, ‘such amount’, ‘amount equal to the amount of gratuity’ under various sub-sections in Section 7 and submitted that the legislature has consciously intended that the pre-deposit is an amount equal to the amount of gratuity, which does not include interest for the gratuity amount. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the observation in BL Rubber Industries Private Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Khurana , Managing Director, (COIRFED) v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) is to be held per incuriam

6. The party respondent relied on BL Rubber Industries Private Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Khurana , Managing Director (COIRFED) v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) in support of his contention that the pre-deposit contemplated under the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act is the amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub-section (4) which includes the gratuity amount and interest.

7. Sm