Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK JAIN, J.
Smt. Sohagvati (Dead) Thr. Lrs Chandra Prakash, S/o. Late Shri Raj Mani Sharma and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Upkshetriya Prabandhak South Estern Kol Fields Limited. and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 15186 Of 2017
Decided On : 08-12-2023
(1) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -- S. 7 -- is mandatory provision -- payment of gratuity not dependent on claim of employee -- it is duty of employer himself to pay gratuity -- in default of payment, he has to pay interest after expiry of 30 days. [Paras 10 to 12]
(2) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -- S. 7 -- Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 -- R.7 -- Payment of Gratuity (Madhya Pradesh) Rules, 1973 -- R. 7 -- limitation for claim -- Act does not provide any limitation -- any time-limit provided in Rules would not override provisions of Act -- time-limit for submitting claim only procedural in nature -- does not extinguish right of employees to claim gratuity -- they cannot be deprived from right of gratuity flowing from Art. 300A of Constitution -- ground of delay taken by authorities totally contrary to provisions of Act and Rules. 2014 (3) MPLJ 641 relied on. [Paras 14 & 19]
(3) Civil Services -- retiral dues -- retiral dues, including gratuity, not bounty -- it is deferred payment to employee for long services rendered by him -- retiral dues are also recognized as property under Art. 300A of Constitution -- person can be deprived of property only in accordance with law. 2013 AIR SCW 4749 followed. 2013 (4) MPLJ 35 relied on. [Para 17]
(4) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -- Ss. 7 and 4(6)(b) -- forfeiture of gratuity -- use of word “may” in S. 4(6)(b) makes it clear that discretion is cast on employer -- employer has to discharge discretion by passing specific order -- there cannot be any automatic forfeiture of gratuity in terms of S. 4(6)(b). [Para 24]
(5) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -- Ss. 7 and 4(6)(b) -- forfeiture of gratuity -- services of husband of petitioner terminated for riotous and disorderly conduct -- employer has till date not passed any specific order of forfeiture of gratuity in terms of S. 4(6)(b) -- right of petitioner to receive gratuity stands fully matured -- petition allowed -- respondent No. 1 directed to calculate gratuity payable to deceased husband of petitioner on date of termination and pay it along with interest. [Paras 25 & 26]
(6) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -- Ss. 7 and 4(6)(b) -- recovery of rent from gratuity – services of husband of petitioner terminated -- recovery of rent from gratuity for unauthorized occupation of quarter -- no order of ascertainment of penal rent placed on record -- no provision in Act for deduction of any amount payable to employer by employee -- employer not entitled to make any deduction of penal rent or penal occupation charges from gratuity -- at liberty to get quarter vacated and to recover penal rent, etc. by resorting to other proceedings maintainable under law. (2001) 6 SCC 591 followed. [Paras 27 & 28]
¼1½ minku lank; vf/kfu;e] 1972 & /kkjk 7 & vkKkid mica/k gS & minku dk lank; deZpkjh ds nkos ij fuHkZj ugha & minku dk lank; djuk Lo;a fu;kstd dk drZO; gS & lank; esa O;frØe gksus ij mls 30 fnol ds volku ds mijkar C;kt lanÙk djuk gksrk gSA ¼iSjk 10 ls 12½
¼2½ minku lank; vf/kfu;e] 1972 & /kkjk 7 & minku lank; ¼dsUæh;½ fu;e] 1972 & fuŒ 7 & minku lank; ¼e/; izns'k½ fu;e] 1973 & fuŒ 7 & nkos ds fy, ifjlhek & vf/kfu;e esa dksbZ ifjlhek micaf/kr ugha & fu;eksa esa micafèkr dksbZ Hkh le;&lhek vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ij v/;kjksgh ugha gksxh & nkok izLrqr djus ds fy, le; &lhek dsoy izfØ;kRed iz—fr dh & minku dk nkok djus dk deZpkfj;ksa dk vf/kdkj fuokZfir ugha djrh & mUgsa lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 300d ls izokfgr minku ds vf/kdkj ls oafpr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & izkfèkdkfj;ksa }kjk fy;k x;k foyac dk vk/kkj vf/kfu;e vkSj fu;eksa ds mica/kksa ds fcYdqy izfrdwyA 2014 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 641 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 19½
¼3½ flfoy lsok & lsokfuo`fÙk ns;d & lsokfuo`fÙk ns;d minku lfgr] vfèknku ugha & og deZpkjh }kjk dh xbZ yach lsok ds fy, mls fd;k tkus okyk vkLFkfxr lank; gS & lsokfuo`fÙk ns;dksa dks lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 300d ds v/khu laifÙk ds :i esa ekU; Hkh fd;k x;k gS & O;fä dks fof/k ds vuqlkj gh laifÙk ls oafpr fd;k tk ldrk gSA 2013 ,vkbvkj ,llhMCY;w 4749 vuqlfjrA 2013 ¼4½ ,eih,yts 35 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 17½
¼4½ minku lank; vf/kfu;e] 1972 & /kkjk 7 rFkk 4¼6½¼[k½ & minku dk leigj.k & /kkjk 4¼6½¼[k½ esa 'kCn ^^fd;k tk ldsxk** ds mi;ksx ls Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd fu;kstd dks foosdkf/kdkj fn;k x;k gS & fu;kstd dks fofufnZ"V vkns'k ikfjr dj foosdkf/kdkj dk fuoZgu djuk gksrk gS & /kkjk 4¼6½¼[k½ ds fucaèkukuqlkj minku dk Lor% leigj.k ugha gks ldrkA ¼iSjk 24½
¼5½ minku lank; vf/kfu;e] 1972 & /kkjk 7 rFkk 4¼6½¼[k½ & minku dk leigj.k & ;kph ds ifr dh lsok cyokRed vkSj foPN`a[ky vkpj.k ds dkj.k lekIr dh xbZ & fu;kstd us vkt fnukad rd /kkjk 4¼6½¼[k½ ds fucaèkukuqlkj minku ds leigj.k dk fofufnZ"V vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k & minku izkIr djus dk ;kph dk vf/kdkj iw.kZr% ifjiDo gks x;k & ;kfpdk eatwj & izR;FkhZ Øekad 1 dks lsoklekfIr ds fnukad dks ;kph ds e`r ifr dks lans; minku dh lax.kuk djus vkSj mls C;kt lfgr lanÙk djus dk funs'kA ¼iSjk 25 ,oa 26½
¼6½ minku lank; vf/kfu;e] 1972 & /kkjk 7 rFkk 4¼6½¼[k½ & minku ls HkkM+s dh olwyh & ;kph ds ifr dh lsok lekIr dh xbZ & vkokl x`g ds vizkfèkÑr vf/kHkksx ds fy, minku ls HkkM+s dh olwyh & nkafMd HkkM+s ds vfHkfu'p;u dk dksbZ vkns'k vfHkys[k ij is'k ugha fd;k x;k & deZpkjh }kjk fu;kstd dks lans; fdlh jde dh dVkSrh ds fy, vf/kfu;e esa mica/k ugha & fu;kstd nkafMd HkkM+s ;k nkafMd vf/kHkksx izHkkj dh dVkSrh minku ls djus dk gdnkj ugha & fof/k ds v/khu pyus ;ksX; vU; dk;Zokfg;ksa dk vkJ; ysdj vkokl x`g fjä djkus vkSj nkafMd HkkM+k vkfn olwy djus ds fy, Lora=A ¼2001½ 6 ,llhlh 591 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 27 ,oa 28½
ORDER :
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is widow of deceased employee of respondent No.1 – South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. During pendency of the present petition, even the widow has expired and the petition has been contested by her legal representatives.
2. The facts in brief of the case are that the deceased husband (Rajmani Sharma) of the petitioner was employed with the respondent No.1 on a blue-collared post of Driver. He is alleged to have committed some disorderly and riotous conduct while in service on 20.05.1987 with an officer holding the post of Deputy CME/Sub Area Manager. Within four days of the alleged misbehavior with the officer, the same officer passed an order of termination of services of the deceased husband of the petitioner on 24.5.1987. The termination order was put to challenge before the CGIT, Jabalpur and vide award dated 18.8.2008, the CGIT has upheld the termination. The said termination/dismissal order was further confirmed by this Court in writ petition filed by the deceased husband of the petitioner vide order dated 23.04.2003 passed in W.P. No.448/2008.
3. The management did not pay gratuity to the deceased husband of the petitioner, nor passed any order forfeiting the gratuity. In the meantime, the husband of the petitioner expired on 14.12.2008. The petitioner submitted an application in Form – N of Payment of Gratuity Central Rules on 31.07.2013 before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority held that since termination of service of husband of the petitioner has been upheld, he is not entitled for any consequential benefit and thus, he is not entitled for payment of gratuity, which is part of consequential benefits.
4. The Controlling Authority further held that the claim of the petitioner to be barred by limitation. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before to the Appellate Authority and the appeal was decided vide order dated 15.09.2014 (Annexure P/14). The appellate authority held that there is no order of forfeiture of gratuity in terms of Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore, the appellate authority directed the respondent No.1 to take a decision on the matter on legal merits as per the Scheme of Payment of Gratuity Act. The respondent No.1 thereafter took a decision dated 21.01.2015 (Annexure P/9) and held that the order of the Controlling Authority dated 31.07.2013 has already held the claim to be barred by time. It was further mentioned that the quarter was unauthorizedly occupied by the deceased husband of the petitioner and the penal charges for the said occupation are more than gratuity and should be recovered.
5. The petitioner then approached the Controlling Authority once again in the year 2016 and the Controlling Authority rejected the claim of the petitioner on the principle of res-judicata because the earlier order of the Controlling Authority was not set aside on the merits by the appellate authority in the first round.
6. The petitioner again approached the appellate authority for a second time and now by order Annexure P/26 her claim has been rejected by the appellate authority for the second time on the following grounds:-
(ii) The petitioner is not entitled for Payment of Gratuity.
(iii) The order of appellate authority in the first round was bad in law.
(iv) The order of the Controlling Authority in the second round is perfectly legal and valid.
7. The present case presents a very short state of affairs, where a widow is still fighting for gratuity and the deceased husband of the petitioner expired while awaiting gratuity and even 15 years after death of her husband, the petitioner has been made to approach again and again before the authorities and the authorities have relied on intricacies of civil law to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioner, which is made out under specific provisions of Payment of Gratui
Employer cannot withhold gratuity for unauthorized retention of quarters post-retirement; statutory interest of 10% applies for delayed payment.
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....
Gratuity is a statutory entitlement not subject to withholding after superannuation absent explicit legal grounds for forfeiture, emphasizing employee protection under the Act.
Gratuity cannot be withheld posthumously unless the employee's service was terminated; death in harness entitles the widow to full gratuity under the Act.
Gratuity rights under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 cannot be forfeited without a formal determination of liability against the employee during their lifetime, and mere allegations are insufficie....
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
