Gratuity may be withheld pending disciplinary proceedings, dependent on the final outcome of those proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 01-12-2025

1. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following relief(s):

“i. Quashing the order dated

30.04.2019 passed in file No 36/02/2018- Appeal/Dy.CLC by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna cum Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by which it has upheld the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna and Controlling Authority under the in File No.

48/1(13)/2015/ALC-PT.

ii. Quashing the order dated

30.11.2017 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna and Controlling Authority under the Payment Gratuity Act, 1972 in File No. 48/1(13)/2015/ALC-PT by which the Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central) Patna has directed the petitioner to paid Gratuity to Respondent Shaukat Ali for the entire period of service and further 10%

interest total amounting to Rs. 14,29,797/-

iii. During pendency of this writ application stay the operation of impugned orders.

iv. For any other relief(s) for which the petitioner is entitled for in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. At the outset, the Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Writ petition, being CWJC No. 11529 of 2019 (Food Corporation of India through General Manager Vs. Union of India & Ors.), was earlier filed by the Writ petitioner herein, seeking similar relief, and the facts of the case were also similar to those in the present writ petition. The said Writ petition was allowed by a judgment dated 06.12.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman- cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coal Limited Vs. Sri Rabindranath Choubey reported in 2020(3) PLJR (SC) 438

3. Therefore, the Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since this matter is squarely covered under the order passed in Food Corporation of India through General Manager(supra) by this Court, this Writ petition may also be disposed of on the same terms and conditions.

4. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, despite repeated adjournments having been granted, no one appears on behalf of the respondents.

5. For better appreciation of the facts, the relevant part of the judgment passed in Food Corporation of India through General Manager (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:

“12. The moot question for consideration before this court is as to whether the payment of gratuity will be subject to the outcome of the Departmental Proceeding or the authority under Gratuity Act has rightly passed the order for payment of gratuity. The identical issue involved in the present writ application was pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9693 of 2013 ( Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Vs. Sri Rabindranath Choubey ) and the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court having considered the various aspect of the matter including the relevant provisions of the Payment and Gratuity Act, 1972 has been pleased to held that:

“The provisions of Section 4 (6) of the Act of 1972 prevail over (1) as provisions of (6) contain non- obstante clause as to (1). It would prevail over the provisions made in (1) and gratuity would not become payable mandatorily as provided in (1). The provisions of (6) provide recovery or forfeiture where services of employee have been terminated for the reasons prescribed in (6)(a) and 4(6)(b). (6)(a) and (b) both provide for recovery of loss caused or forfeiture wholly or partially in the case of termination of services. In case after superannuation of employee there cannot be any dismissal i.e., termination of services as contemplated in (6), then there can be no recovery of pecuniary loss caused by employee or forfeiture