The availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy under the statutory provisions and the non-mandatory nature of the requirement of filing a written application for gratuity under Rule 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Rules 1972.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 20-03-2019 passed in a gratuity claim filed on 31-08-2017 by the private Respondent no. 3 (Original Applicant in the claim application), against the petitioner company, whereby, the Controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner - Srinagar, has decided the issue as to 'whether the instant application is hit by limitation?' in favour of the Respondent No. 3, (the Applicant therein) and against the Petitioner (Non -Applicant therein).

2.The impugned order had mainly dealt with the issue of limitation, among other issues, wherein the Respondent No. 3 had prayed for the payment of gratuity along with interest. The petitioner filed objections through their counsel resisting the claim on the grounds that;

a. No Application under Rule-7 of Gratuity Rules has been filed by the Respondent No. 3, before the petitioner company, as such under law, Application was not maintainable.

b. Gratuity cannot be denied as per rules but the Respondent No. 3 was required to obtain NOC from the stores section which exercise has not been done by him, in view of the fact that Respondent No. 3, while in service had taken advance of Rs. 75000/- from the petitioner company. Out of which still Rs 55,000/-is outstanding against Respondent No. 3.

c. One laptop of the company with bio data & information pertaining to the business affairs of the company is with Respondent No. 3 has not been returned despite repeated requests, resulting in huge loss to the company.

d. Respondent No. 3 has not worked for the months of July, August and September 2016, as such is not entitled to the arrears as claimed.

Pursuant to the submissions made and analysis of statutory provisions, the statutory authority decided the issue of limitation in favour of the Respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 20.03.2019.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3.The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner being partner of the firm M/S Gautam Engineering Company, Srinagar having employed Respondent No.3 in the year 2009. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that respondent no.3, while in employment, took an advance loan amounting to 50,000/- from the petitioner through cheque vide No.192325 dated 25.06.2016 and by cash amounting to Rs.20,000/- on 17.11.2016 plus an additional advance of Rs. 5,000/-on 31.12.2016. Thus total advance amount received by Respondent No. 3 was Rs.75,000/- ,out of which Respondent No.3 has paid four instalments of 5,000/- leaving behind the balance of Rs. 55,000/- which the Respondent No.3 owes to the petitioner company. Respondent no.3 was assigned the job to deal with the sale and purchase of the company and was also given a laptop to deal with the clients of the company, wherein data related to all business secrets, transactions and planning was stored.

4. It has been contended that from the month of July, 2016 till September, 2016, Respondent No.3 did not attend his duties. However, he joined back on October, 2016 and in April, 2017, left the job again without any intimation to the company that too without paying any balance amount which Respondent No.3 owes to the Company i.e amount of Rs.55,000/- and the laptop wherein all the business dealings and secrets were stored was stolen by him and has not returned the laptop to the company till date. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that Respondent No.3 was under legal obligation to return the laptop alongwith all the business information to the petitioner Company besides the amount which the Respondent No.3 owes to the petitioner company. Instead, Respondent No.3 filed a claim petition before Respondent No.2 i.e., Assistant Labour Commissioner, Under Payment of Wages Act, Srinagar, for release of leave salary.

5.The further stand of the petitioner is that the preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the claim petition, which was argued before Assistant Labour Commissioner, S