Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3717
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Shekher Dhawan, J.
National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Appellate Authority Under Section 7(7) Of Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972-cum- Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (central), Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9a, Chandigarh And Others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 26155 of 2017, 26165 of 2017, 26168 of 2017, 26172 of 2017, 26173 of 2017, 26176 of 2017, 26178 of 2017, 26181 of 2017, 26184 of 2017, 26216 of 2017, 26217 of 2017, 26218 of 2017, 26219 of 2017, 26220 of 2017, 26221 of 2017, 26222 of 2017, 26223 of 2017, 26257 of 2017, 1855 of 2018, 1879 of 2018, 1919 of 2018, 1962 of 2018, 1974 of 2018, 4680 of 2018, 19416 of 2018, 19457 of 2018, 19605 of 2018, 19709 of 2018, 23538 of 2018
Decided On : 20-09-2018
Lokesh Sinhal, Adv., Piyush Khanna, Adv., Abha Sharma, Adv., Budh Ram, Adv., Anupam Maurya, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Gratuity Act should be scrupulously observed, and the delay in filing the claim for gratuity should not be a valid ground to reject the claim of the employee.
Headnote:
Gratuity - Payment Dispute - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 7(7) - Rule 7, Rule 10
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the payment of gratuity to an employee of the petitioner-Corporation. The employee claimed that the full payment of gratuity was not made to him as per his entitlement under the Gratuity Act, while the petitioner-Corporation contested the claim on grounds of delay and resolution passed by the Board of Directors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employee's claim for gratuity was valid as per the provisions of the Gratuity Act, and the delay in filing the claim was condoned by the Controlling Authority. The court held that the provisions for limitation in respect of payment of gratuity are procedural in nature and do not intend to extinguish the right of the employee.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the employee's claim for gratuity, the condonation of delay by the Controlling Authority, and the interpretation of the provisions of the Gratuity Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the claim for gratuity should not be a valid ground to reject the claim of the workman, as the Gratuity Act is a welfare legislation for the benefit of employees. The court also emphasized that the payment of gratuity should be made as per the provisions of the Gratuity Act, and not as per any resolution of the petitioner-Corporation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the decision of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority in favor of the employee's entitlement to receive the balance amount of gratuity along with interest as per the Gratuity Act.
JUDGMENT
Shekher Dhawan, J. - As common questions of law and facts are involved in these above titled 29 writ petitions filed by National Project Construction Corporation Ltd. (for short, "the petitioner-Corporation") and the matter in controversy relates to the payment on account difference of gratuity to the employees of the petitioner-Corporation, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all these writ petitions are taken up together for disposal.
2. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from CWP No. 26155 of 2017 - National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972-cum- Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9A, Chandigarh and Others.
3. The petitioner-Corporation has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Appellate Authority, respondent no.1 and order dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Controlling Authority, respondent no. 2, whereby the respondent No.3 (Shyam Lal) was held entitled to receive Rs. 80502/- towards balance amount of gratuity along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum w.e.f. the date, the gratuity became due till it is finally paid.
4. As per respondent No.3, he had preferred claim under Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central Rules), 1972 (for short, "the Rules") read with Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (for short, "the Gratuity Act") on application in Form 'N' on account of superannuation alongwith application for condonation of delay. Respondent No. 3 superannuated on 31.07.2010, but full payment was not made to him as per his entitlement under the Gratuity Act. As per respondent No. 3, payment of gratuity was to be made within one month from the date of superannuation, but the same was not paid.
5. Petitioner-Corporation contested the claim before respondent No.2 taking the plea that application was time barred as the same was not filed within 90 days and the claim was filed after more than 5-1/2 years.
The petitioner-Corporation also took the plea in the reply that as per resolution passed by the Board of Directors (BOD), employees of the petitioner-Corporation were to be paid gratuity @ 15/26 days emoluments for each completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months subject to a maximum of 16-1/2 times of emoluments or Rs. 10.00 lakhs whichever is less. Accordingly, the gratuity was calculated. Out of total amount due, i.e. Rs. 6,77,160/-, a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- was paid to the applicant/respondent no. 3 on 24.09.2010 and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,27,160/- was paid vide order dated 15.5.2012 and the same was accepted by the applicant/respondent No. 3 without any demure and as such, respondent no. 3 is estopped from challenging the same.
6. The appeal filed by the petitioner-Corporation before respondent No.1 was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure P/8).
7. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-Corporation while assailing the said orders contended that no application for payment of gratuity was filed by respondent no. 3 before the petitioner-Corporation as prescribed under Rule 7 of 'the Rules', which is mandatory requirement to be fulfilled before filing application under Rule (10)(1)(i) to the Controlling Authority. Secondly, the application filed by respondent No.3 was barred by limitation. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Ramdas Naw Vs. Bank of India and another , (2014) 11 SCT 805.
8. Learned counsel representing respondent No.3/employees contended that all these pleas/contentions were also raised by the petitioner-Corporation before respondent No.1 and 2 and were considered and decided against the petitioner-Corporation as the delay was condoned by the competent authority as per law. The
