A registered nominee of an employee can claim Provident Fund and gratuity irrespective of familial relations, particularly when no other legal heirs exist.

“ ORDER

1. The Application is partly allowed.

2. It is hereby declared that the Application is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.3,66,240/- from the Opponents towards P.F. payable to the deceased Ratnamala Salve.

3. The Respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,66,240/- within 30 days from the date of the order.

4. If the Opponents fail to pay the said amount within 30 days, the Appropriate Government shall recover the same as per the provisions of law.

5. The parties shall bear their own costs.”

8. It is the above order which is subject matter of challenge by the MCGM in the present proceedings.

9. In so far as this writ petition is concerned, it assails an order dated 24 July, 2017 passed by the learned Labour Judge whereby the claim as made by the respondent for the amount of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act , 1972, has been allowed directing the petitioner-MCGM to pay an amount of Rs. 1,06,841/- to the respondent towards gratuity. The operative part of the order required to be noted which reads thus:-

“ ORDER

1. Application is partly allowed.

2. The respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,06,841/- within 60 days from the date of the order.

3. If the opponents fail to pay or deposit the said amount with the office of the Controlling Authority, they will have to pay interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of the order till the realization.

4. The parties shall bear their own costs.”

10. The above order passed by the labour Judge was challenged in an appeal filed by the petitioners before the Industrial Court as permissible under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act , 1972, inter alia contending that the respondent was not entitled to claim the amount of gratuity as there was no valid nomination. The Industrial Court by the impugned order dated 20 December, 2018, has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners confirming the order dated 24 July, 2017 passed by the Labour Judge on Application (PGA) No. 17 of 2015.

11. On 03 May, 2019, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had passed an order on the present proceedings thereby observing that the respondent was already permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,06,841/- subject to the undertaking to repay the amount, in the event the writ petition is allowed. The respondent was permitted to withdraw the said amount as deposited with the Industrial Court is concerned.

12. Mr. Peerzada, learned counsel for the petitioners in assailing the orders subject matter of both the petitions, has limited submissions. His principal contention is that in so far as the payment of gratuity is concerned, considering the definition of ‘Family’ under Section 2 (h) of the Payment of Gratuity Act , 1972, the respondent would not become entitled to make a claim for payment of gratuity. It is submitted that even if the deceased employee submitted certain documents which showed that the respondent was accepted to be the only legal heir by the deceased employee, the same were of no consequence. Mr. Peerzada has pointed out the observations of the Labour Court as also the Industrial Court to contend that the case as put up by the respondent ought not to be accepted considering the position in law. Mr. Peerzada has however fairly submitted that in all these years after the death of the deceased employee, no claim has been made by any person, claiming the said amounts.

13. On the other hand, Ms. Sayed, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned orders. She submits that there was sufficient material on the record of the Labou