Back
2021 Supreme(Telangana) 176
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J.
M/s. Water Health India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Asst Commissioner Labour Central and another – Respondents
WRIT PETITION NOs.3807, 3812, 3818 AND 3850 OF 2021
Decided On : 24-11-2021
Point of Law: As and when an employee is terminated, the employer must pay gratuity in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act.
Headnote:
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 4 (6) and 7 - Indian Companies Act – Workman – Termination order - Payment of gratuity – Petitioner is a registered Company under Indian Companies Act and it is in establishment of Portable Water Plants. In order to do business, petitioner engaged the unofficial respondent as workman - Petitioner had further contended that unofficial respondent tendered resignation and subsequently, he was engaged as a Consultant vide agreement; that as unofficial respondent was not performing duties in accordance with terms of agreement, his services were terminated vide proceedings; and that at time of termination itself, petitioner has indicated that unofficial respondent has indulged in fraud and caused loss to the petitioner Company and, on that ground, the services of the unofficial respondent was terminated.
Finding of the Court:
1st respondent authority has rightly passed the impugned orders in favour of the unofficial respondents and if the petitioner Company is aggrieved by any of the findings recorded by the 1st respondent authority, they have a remedy in the form of an appeal before the appellate authority under the Act. Without exhausting the said remedy, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions - As and when an employee is terminated, the employer must pay gratuity in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, looked from any angle, these writ petitions are devoid of merits and they are liable to be dismissed.
Result : Writ petitions dismissed
ORDER:
All these writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order, as the issue raised in these writ petitions is one and the same.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.3850 of 2021 are discussed hereunder:
a) W.P.No.3850 of 2021 is filed seeking the following relief:
“…to pass an order or orders, direction or a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 09.12.2020 passed in P.G.Application No.48/18/2020 - E3 on the file of 1st respondent and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
b) It has been contended by the petitioner that it is a registered Company under the Indian Companies Act and it is in the establishment of Portable Water Plants. In order to do the business, the petitioner engaged the unofficial respondent as workman. The petitioner had further contended that the unofficial respondent tendered resignation on 31.01.2020 and subsequently, he was engaged as a Consultant vide agreement dated 01.02.2020; that as the unofficial respondent was not performing duties in accordance with the terms of the agreement, his services were terminated vide proceedings dated 07.04.2020; and that at the time of termination itself, the petitioner has indicated that the unofficial respondent has indulged in fraud and caused loss to the petitioner Company and, on that ground, the services of the unofficial respondent was terminated. The petitioner further stated that the unofficial respondent filed an application, under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Act’), before the 1st respondent seeking payment of gratuity, and the same was numbered as PG Application No.48/18/2020-E3. It is also stated that in the said application, notice was issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent and the petitioner filed counter therein. It is stated that in the counter filed in the said application, the petitioner denied that the unofficial respondent is entitled for gratuity. however, it was specifically contended that the petitioner Company has registered a criminal case in FIR No.107 of 2021 on the file of Keesara Police Station against the unofficial respondent, alleging that the unofficial respondent had cheated the petitioner and caused loss to the petitioner Company; that the police are not investigating the said crime; and that as the police are not investigation the said crime, the petitioner Company is not in a position to assess the actual loss caused to them, therefore, the petitioner forfeited the gratuity to the unofficial respondent, however, no orders to that effect have been passed by them.
3. Heard M/s. Indus Law Firm appearing for the petitioner, Sri G. Venkateshvarlu, Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, and Sri G.V.S. Ganesh, counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4. Counsel for the petitioner had contended that the 1st respondent, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, had mechanically allowed the applications of the unofficial respondents and directed the petitioner to pay gratuity amount of Rs.8,71,657/- to the unofficial respondent in W.P.No.3850 of 2021 and likewise certain amounts towards gratuity were awarded in favour of the unofficial respondents in the other three writ petitions. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that in-house enquiry is going on to ascertain the loss caused to them by the unofficial respondents and once the said enquiry is completed, the petitioner would pass orders in accordance with Section 4 (6) of the Act, but the 1st respondent authority, without waiting for the petitioner to complete the enquiry, has allowed the applications filed by the unofficial respondents, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent be set aside and let the matter be remanded back to the 1st respondent so as to adjudicate the case afresh by giving opportunity to the petitioner to complete the enquiry p
