An employer must provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that an employee's last wages were lower than what the employee claims.

ORDER

1. The petitioner/employer has filed the present petition challenging order dated 27.6.2019 passed by the Controlling Authority and order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the appellate authority under the Gratuity Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent submitted an application before the Controlling Authority claiming gratuity amount of Rs.1,17,658/-. The said case was registered as Case No. 92/2012. The petitioner appeared and filed the reply by submitting that the respondent worked with it for a period of 10 years and his last wages was Rs.3625/-, therefore, Rs.18,822/- is payable to the respondent as a gratuity amount. The aforesaid amount was deposited by way of cheque. The aforesaid case was dismissed in default. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. Which came to be allowed and the case was restored to its original number. After restoration of the case, the petitioner submitted that the respondent was terminated from service and his case is pending before the competent court, therefore, at this stage, amount of gratuity cannot be ascertained.

3. Learned Controlling authority rejected the aforesaid contention of the petitioner and held that the gratuity amount cannot be withheld in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Bal Niketan Sangh V/s.

Union of India (W.P. No.5508/215 and other connected petitions decided on 2.2.2017). The Controlling Authority has recorded the finding that the respondent was appointed on the post of DOC Operator in the year 1980 and he was terminated from service on 30.5.210, therefore, for this period the amount of gratuity is liable to be paid. The petitioner has also not disputed the aforesaid period of working of respondent. According to the petitioner itself, respondent's last wages was Rs.3,625/- and accordingly the Controlling Authority calculated the amount of gratuity at Rs.42,740/- and deducted Rs.18,822/- which was already deposited by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.43,918/- to the respondent along with interest of Rs.30,011/- because of delay of 6 years and 10 months. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of Controlling Authority by way of appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2023. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the material available on record.

5. Facts of the case are not in dispute that the respondent was appointed in the year 1980 and was terminated from service on 30.5.2010, therefore, for this period he was entitled to get the amount of gratuity.

According to the respondent, his last wages was Rs.6,798/- as per pay-slip. The petitioner disputed the aforesaid fact and submitted that the actual date of appointment of the respondent is 1.4.2001 and he was terminated from service on 30.5.2010 and his last wages was Rs.3,625/- and accordingly, gratuity amount of Rs.18,822/- was deposited by way of cheque. The petitioner has not filed any document either before the Controlling Authority or before the Appellate Authority to establish that the respondent was appointed on 1.4.2001. Even in the present petition, not a single document has been filed to establish the aforesaid date of appointment of the respondent. Therefore, the findings recorded by the two courts below are not liable to be interfered with.

6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/- Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2024.03.21 18:39:01 +05'30'