Back
2007 Supreme(Jhk) 633
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
Gauri Chakraborty
Versus
Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. And Ors.
L.P.A. No. 293 of 2006
Decided on : 6-8-2007
The Payment of Gratuity Act does not necessarily override a company's internal Gratuity Rules, and an employee cannot unilaterally switch from the company's rules to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Headnote:
Payment of Gratuity Act - Company's Gratuity Rules - Section 4(6)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a retired employee, filed a complaint against the company for not paying the full gratuity amount, which was to be paid after vacating the company's quarter as per the Company's Gratuity Rules. The Deputy Labour Commissioner directed the company to pay the gratuity without the condition of vacating the quarter. The company challenged this order through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had vacated the quarter and received the gratuity amount, making the issue of vacating the quarter irrelevant. The court also noted that the appellant had no authority to raise the issue on behalf of other employees. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act did not override the Company's Gratuity Rules, and the appellant was not entitled to further amounts or interest.
Issues: The issues involved vacating the company's quarter as a condition for receiving the full gratuity amount, the authority of the Deputy Labour Commissioner's order, and the appellant's standing to raise the issue on behalf of other employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's compliance with vacating the quarter made the issue irrelevant, and the appellant had no authority to raise the issue on behalf of other employees. The court also found that the Payment of Gratuity Act did not override the Company's Gratuity Rules.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the order passed in WP(S) No. 1418/ 03. The appellant was the 3rd respondent in the said writ petition. M/S TISCO had filed the said petition challenging the order dated 24.2.2003 passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner-cul-Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. By the said order M/S TISCO were directed to pay the amount of gratuity to the appellant observing that they cannot withhold the gratuity for not vacating company’s quarter by her. in view of the provision contained in Section 4(6) of the
Payment of Gratuity Act.
2. Before proceeding further with the case, it is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the writ petition, the 3rd respondent-appellant vacated the Company’s quarter and has received the amount of gratuity. However, that culmination was preceded by the events which will be discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
3. After the Company’s quarter was vacated by the 3rd respondent-appellant and the amounts of gratuity and other dues were paid to her, learned single Judge might have thought that the purpose of the writ petition was achieved and nothing further remained to be decided in the writ petition. Learned single Judge thus disposed of the writ petition as hereunder:
Having regard to the fact that the 3rd respondent has vacated the quarter of the TISCO and substantial admitted dues have been paid by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to give any finding with regard to claim and counter claim, made by the parties....
He also set aside the order date 24.2.2003 passed by the said Authority.
4. Learned single Judge further directed the TISCO to forward a chart to the3rd respondent showing details of deductions and payments etc with liberty to the appellant to bring to the notice of the competent authority, if there is any miscalculation or non-consideration of the relevant facts according to her. The concerned authority was directed to consider and decide any such claim made by the appellant.
5. Though the appellant has vacated the Company’s quarter, got her gratuity and other benefits and has also been given liberty to make her claim, if any, before her employer with a direction to the employer to consider and decide any such claim, the appellant is not satisfied with the impugned order and has preferred this appeal with a prayer to set aside the said order of learned single Judge, probably unmindful for the facts that even if the impugned order is
set aside the main purpose of the writ petitioner has already been served as soon as she vacated the Company’s quarter. Such being the position, the, purposed this appeal is not quite clear.
6. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, explaining the purpose of the appeal, submitted that a judicial decision is required in his appeal as a future guideline for the benefits of the other employees of the TISCO who are governed by the provisions of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited Retiring Gratuity Rules, 1937 which, according to learned Counsel, are subject to1 the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,under which the Deputy Labour Commissioner -cum- Authority had directed the TISCO to pay the gratuity payable to the appellant without compelling her to vacate the Company’s quarter.
7. The said issue might have some relevance at the earlier point of time, but is now non - existent between the parties. The appellant has not been litigating in a representative capacity nor has got such authority on record to raise such issue for other employees or to expose their cause. We, therefore, see up locus stand of the appellant to raise such issue for the purpose of other employees of the TISCO and demand a decision of this Court as a guideline for an apprehended future controversy.
8. More so when the said issue has been raised by a superannuated employee who has claimed/received all the benefits in accordance with the provisions of the said Gratuity Rules
