IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSH BUNGER, J.
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Sukhjeet Kaur & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 5407 of 2018
Decided On : 05-01-2024
JUDGMENT
Mr. Harsh Bunger, J.
Petitioners-Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and others have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing an order dated 13.12.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 as well as order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
2. Briefly, respondent No.1 (Sukhjeet Kaur) filed an application (Annexure P-3) before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 seeking a direction to the petitioners-University to pay gratuity to her. As per respondent No.1 (Sukhjeet Kaur), she was an employee of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and she retired from service on 31.07.2014 after completion of 35 years, 6 months and 13 days of continuous service. She claimed that she joined the University as daily paid worker on 19.01.1979 up to 06.05.1980 and thereafter, she worked as Sports Attendant up to 31.07.2014. Respondent No.1 claimed that she was not paid full gratuity as per her due entitlement and she was paid gratuity amount of Rs.4,70,207/- by counting her service as 25 years, 6 months and 7 days. Respondent No.1 claimed that the petitioners-University had wrongly ignored her service of more than 10 years and had withheld the balance gratuity amount without assigning any reason, accordingly, claim for gratuity was made.
3. On the other hand, the claim for the gratuity amount by respondent No.1 (Sukhjeet Kaur) was contested by the petitioners-University by submitting that respondent No.1 has rendered service only for 25 years, 6 months and 7 days and for the said period, the gratuity amount already stands paid. It was submitted that as per the rules and regulations of the Punjab Agricultural University, there was no provision to count the service of stop gap basis on which respondent No.1 was kept. It was also submitted that the service of respondent No.1 was covered under Punjab Civil Services Rules which are applicable to the Punjab Agricultural University, accordingly, respondent No.1 was entitled to gratuity as per the Funds and Pension Rules of the Punjab Agricultural University and her case was not covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It was stated that prior to 24.01.1989, respondent No.1 was appointed in the department on stop gap basis and her services were regularized on 25.01.1989. It was further stated that respondent No.1 was not entitled to any gratuity, for the period she worked on daily wage basis w.e.f. 19.01.1979 to 06.05.1980. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the claim of respondent No.1 was made.
4. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 vide the order dated 13.12.2016 (Annexure P-5) allowed the claim of respondent No.1 and she was held entitled to gratuity amount of Rs.8,34,486/-. It was clarified that the gratuity amount of Rs.4,70,207/- has already been received by respondent No.1, accordingly, balance gratuity amount of Rs. 3,64,279/- was liable to be paid to her.
5. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the petitioners herein, filed a Statutory Appeal under section 7 (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, however, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-6) by holding as under:-
Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Emps. Assn.
Charan Singh v. M/s. Birla Textiles 1988 (57) FLR 543 SC
H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd.
Hindustan Lever v. State of Maharashtra
Municipal Corporation Delhi v. Dharam Prakash Sharma
Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 must include entire continuous service, including stop-gap employment, unless exempted by the appropriate Government.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the overriding effect of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, over other enactments, and the requirement of continuous service for the payment of gra....
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.
Employer cannot withhold gratuity for unauthorized retention of quarters post-retirement; statutory interest of 10% applies for delayed payment.
The right to interest on delayed gratuity payments is statutory and mandatory under Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The right to interest on delayed gratuity payments is statutory and mandatory under Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.