Liability to pay gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act is determined based on the provisions of Section 2(A) read with Section 25-B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and relevant judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J. - Heard T. P. S. Takuli, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. In this writ application, the petitioner being the M.D., Punjab & Sind Bank, has prayed to quash the final order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’ for brevity), and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, (Central), Dehradun confirming the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) India, in the Claim Application No. N-36(43)/2020-RLC, by virtue of the order impugned, the learned Controlling Authority directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,46,230/- as gratuity along with simple interest @ 10% per annum on the amount as per Section 7 (3-A) of the Act from the date it became payable i.e. 05.06.2019 till the date of actual payment. We have carefully examined the judgements impugned in this case, and find that the learned Controlling Authority has very carefully examined the provisions of law and fact of the case.

3. It is not disputed that the respondent has worked in the factory about 4 years and 294 days and, hence, the controlling authority applying the provisions of Section 2(A) read with Section 25-B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, relying upon the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma and others vs. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, New Delhi and another,[1980(4)SCC443] has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay gratuity. There is confirming judgments by the two authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy the Court that there is any substantial issue which should be decided in this matter. In course of the arguments, it is submitted that if this order is upheld, then there may be other applications filed by some other persons. Unfortunately, that is not a ground to admit a writ application. If any other employee is similar situated seeks an application that will be considered on its merit. But, in order to obviate such filing of further applications by other aggrieved employees, the writ application cannot be admitted. Hence, the writ application is dismissed being devoid of merit.

5. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.