Gratuity claims need to be addressed through the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act if previous payments have been made.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to pay gratuity reckoning his service from 01.02.1982 to 17.12.1998 and from 22.01.2009 to 31.05.2020, after deducting an amount of Rs.20,036/- earlier paid as gratuity.

2. Petitioner had availed foreign employment leave, which is granted upto 17.12.1998. Thereafter he overstayed the leave, which culminated in disciplinary proceedings and later on, the petitioner was dismissed from service. At the time of dismissal, gratuity amount of Rs.20,036/- was paid. Petitioner challenged the dismissal order raising an industrial dispute and Ext.P1 award was passed, the operative portion of which reads as follows:

“In the result, an Award is passed as follows. The Order dated 24.07.2001 of the Management terminating the service of the Workman is set aside and as he had absented from duty without permission and without any justification from 17.12.1998 he is liable to be reprimanded and the Management is directed to reinstate him in service within 3 months from today imposing the punishment of reprimand with the further direction that the period of his absence from 17.12.1998 till the date specified for his reinstatement or his actual reinstatement whichever occurs first shall not be reckoned for any purpose. In case of the failure of the Management to reinstate the Workman within the period specified herein he is entitled to get all service benefits which are applicable to the other permanent employees of the Management company from the last date stipulated for his reinstatement.”

Pursuant to Ext.P1 award, petitioner was reinstated in service on 22.01.2009 and he continued till retirement on 31.05.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that calculating the said period gratuity amount of Rs.2,95,264/- has been paid to the petitioner as evident from Ext.P3.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in view of the earlier payment of Rs.20,036/- and the subsequent payment as evident from Ext.P3 for an amount of Rs.2,95,264/-, the entire amount due to the petitioner towards gratuity has been satisfied and therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition.

4. Heard the rival contentions on both sides.

It is an admitted fact that the gratuity amount was paid to the petitioner as seen from Ext.P3. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the amount of gratuity paid, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent authority seeking reliefs and the same cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. Accordingly, leaving open the right of the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act , 1972, the writ petition is closed.

Sd/-