Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ravi Ranjan, Sujit Narayan Prasad, JJ.
Steel Authority of India Limited, represented through its Deputy General Manager John Tapan Kongari, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, District Bokaro – Appellant
Versus
Ram Pratap, son of Late Dhiraj Ram, Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No.724 of 2019 with I.A.No.228 of 2022
Decided On : 15-06-2022
Limitation Act - Condoning delay - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 5 - Section 7 - [I.A. No.228 of 2022] - [L.P.A. No.724 of 2019] - [Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972] - The court allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 23 days in preferring the appeal. The intra-court appeal was directed against the order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No.1795 of 2014, related to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court discussed the statutory provisions under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and held that the writ petitioner was entitled to 6 per cent interest per annum upon the gratuity amount for a specific period. The court also considered the legal provisions and principles related to the issuance of the Writ of Certiorari and found no error in the decision of the learned Single Judge.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a permanent employee, was dismissed from service and later reinstated with back wages. However, the gratuity amount was not paid, leading to a series of legal proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The employee sought interest on the delayed gratuity amount, which was initially denied by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the payment of 6 per cent interest per annum on the gratuity amount for a specific period. The appellant challenged this decision in the intra-court appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in payment of gratuity was attributable to the employer and that the learned Single Judge's decision did not suffer from any error. The court also held that the Writ of Certiorari was correctly issued by the learned Single Judge, showing no error in interfering with the decisions of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in payment of gratuity was attributable to the employer and whether the learned Single Judge's decision to allow the writ petition and direct the payment of interest on the gratuity amount was correct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the legal principles related to the issuance of the Writ of Certiorari. The court found that the delay in payment of gratuity was attributable to the employer, and the learned Single Judge's decision did not suffer from any error.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the intra-court appeal, upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge to allow the writ petition and direct the payment of interest on the gratuity amount.
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No.228 of 2022
1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 23 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Heard.
3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay.
4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.
5. Accordingly, I.A.No.228 of 2022 is allowed and delay of 23 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
L.P.A. No.724 of 2019
6. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(L) No.1795 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 14.11.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority contained in memo no.PG Appeal (13)/2013 and order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority in Application No.36/(34)/2012.E.4 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby, the interest claimed by the employee was disallowed, has been quashed and set aside by holding that the order passed by the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority is not in accordance with the statutory provision as contained under the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, therefore, the order impugned was quashed and accordingly, 6 per cent interest per annum upon the gratuity amount for the period 05.05.2010 till 19.07.2012 to be paid in favour of the writ petitioner.
7. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-
The writ petitioner, claims to be permanent employee under the respondents had been dismissed from service w.e.f. 08.07.1985. The order of dismissal has been disputed and finally had been preferred for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Ref. No.15/1999. The said reference has been answered in favour of the writ petitioner-employee vide award dated 22.11.2000 directing the reinstatement in service with 50 per cent back wages. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Management by filing W.P.(L) No.3969 of 2002, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.11.2009 upholding the award. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2009. The award has been implemented by the respondent-Management vide order dated 05.05.2010 by reinstating the writ petitioner in service from 08.07.1985 to 30.04.2009, i.e., till the age of superannuation. The service dues as well as retiral dues has been released in favour of the writ petitioner except gratuity.
The writ petitioner, in consequence of non-disbursement of amount of gratuity, has made an application under the prescribed Form-N before the Controlling Authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, vide application dated 27.02.2012. During pendency of the application, the employer has deposited the gratuity amount of Rs.8,37,985/-. The Controlling Authority has condoned the delay for depositing the amount by the employer by considering the sequence of event and litigation period and has denied the interest to the employee.
Being aggrieved with the same, the writ petitioner has preferred an appeal being PG Appeal (13)/2013 which has been dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2013 upholding the order of the Controlling Authority.
The employee, being aggrieved with the decision of the Controlling Authority as also the Appellate Authority, passed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, denying the interest has approached this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(L) No.1795 of 2014 seeking therein direction to disburse interest over the amount of gratuity, which admittedly has not been paid as per the statutory provision as contained under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The learned Single Judge has apprecia
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the statutory provisions under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the legal principles related to the issuan....
Interpreting Act unequivocally indicate that payment of gratuity would not depend upon employee filing an application before employer demanding gratuity but will have to be paid immediately on cessat....
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....
Employer cannot withhold gratuity for unauthorized retention of quarters post-retirement; statutory interest of 10% applies for delayed payment.
The entire duration of an employee's service is considered for Gratuity entitlements, and non-deposit of awarded Gratuity prevents appellants from successfully appealing against such claims.
The right to interest on delayed gratuity payments is statutory and mandatory under Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 must include entire continuous service, including stop-gap employment, unless exempted by the appropriate Government.
Retired employees are entitled to gratuity and interest on delayed payments, with the court having no discretion to deny interest under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
