The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 12.03.2013 passed in W.P.(L) No.1428 of 2012, whereby, the appellant was directed to make payment of interest over the gratuity amount for the period of delay on account of withholding payment of gratuity to the respondent.

2. The respondent was appointed on 01.07.1963 in Angarpathra Colliery of B.C.C.L. as Electric Helper and the Management recorded his date of birth as 20.03.1946 in Form B register and the respondent was superannuated on 15.09.1998. Even, prior to his retirement, the respondent has raised an industrial dispute on 14.07.1998 for correction of his date of birth as 20.03.1946 and the same was registered as Ref. No. 294 of 2000 before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the action of the Management i.e. date of superannuation on 15.09.1998 as recorded by the Management.

3. The case of the respondent was that the respondent made several representation before the appellant for payment/release of the retiral dues and also the payment of gratuity. Stating that no relief is granted to the respondent. The respondent filed a writ petition being, W.P.(S) No. 641 of 2008 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.12.2008 with the direction to the appellant to release the retiral dues within a period of two months. According to the appellant-Management, the appellant deposited the gratuity amount before the controlling authority on 15.12.2008 and the respondent was also informed about the said deposit on 5/7.01.2009.

4. The respondent filed an application before the controlling authority for payment of interest on the gratuity amount payable to him. By order dated 20.08.2010, the controlling authority has held that the gratuity amount has already been deposited by the Management and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the interest. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent has filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act. Vide order dated 14.04.2011, the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the controlling authority and held that the respondent is entitled to the amount of gratuity only without any interest.

5. Challenging the order passed by the controlling authority confirmed by the appellate authority, the respondent filed W.P.(L) No.1428 of 2012. The learned Single Judge held that under Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, it is the duty of the employer to arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. The learned Single Judge has further held that the appellant-Management themselves have made the respondent retire on 15.09.1998 and they had statutory obligation to deposit the gratuity amount before the controlling authority and on those findings, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to pay statutory interest over the gratuity amount for the period of delay it was withheld as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

6. Challenging the order passed in the writ petition, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the gratuity was deposited immediately after three days of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.641 of 2008 i.e. 13.12.2008 and the respondent was duly informed about the said deposit by 07.01.2009 and the appellant cannot be faulted for not making the payment of gratuity. The learned counsel has further submitted that when the respondent himself has raised the industrial dispute for correction of date of birth as 20.03.1946 and when the respondent himself was responsible for raising the dispute, the appellant-Management cannot be faulted for not paying the gratuity amount on the date of actual superannuation i.e. 15.09.1998. Drawing our attention to Rule 7 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, the learned counsel has submitted that in terms of Rule 7(1), an employee who is eligible for payment of gratui