C A V ORDER

[ Reserved on : 06.04.2021 ] [ Pronounced on : 07.10.2021 ]

1. Aggrieved by Order dated 2.3.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.3 i.e. the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Office of Labour Commissioner, Raipur, the present Writ Petition has been filed by Petitioner.

2. Vide the impugned Order, the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal preferred by Petitioner affirming the Order dated 28.6.2019 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg.

3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the adjudication of the present dispute are that Petitioner was appointed under Respondent No.1 establishment i.e. Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) way back in the year 1958 and on attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 31.5.1996. Upon the Petitioner not receiving the Gratuity on his superannuation, he preferred a dispute before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg where the case was registered as Case No.11/PGA/DA/1997. After hearing the parties, the Controlling Authority vide Order dated 24.6.1998 (Annexure P-2) allowed the application filed by Petitioner and directed Respondent No.1-SAIL to pay a sum of Rs.2,14,925/- towards Gratuity.

4. The said Order dated 24.6.1998 was subjected to challenge by the Management of SAIL vide W.P. No.5925/1998 by making the Petitioner herein also as one of the Respondents. Petitioner was the Respondent No.209 in the said Writ Petition. The High Court after hearing the parties finally vide its Order dated 21.2.2007 (Annexure P-4) allowed the said Writ Petition by holding as under:-

“9. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that based on the calculation sheet Annexure P/6, some of the respondents are making demands with the petitioner-Company for settling the gratuity amount. Learned counsel would further submit that the 4th respondent has not passed any orders and the same are not communicated to the petitioner. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.136 would submit that the 4th respondent has passed an order under the provisions of the Act. In our opinion, if that is so, the respondents would file an appropriate award before the petitioner to comply with the orders and directions issued by the Competent Authority. If and when such awards are produced before the petitioner for settling the claims made in the awards, we are inclined to given an opportunity to the petitioner to question those awards before the appropriate forum within a particular time frame. In view of the above, the following :

Order (1) The allegations made by the petitioner against the 4th respondent in the writ petition are expunged.

(2) The 4th respondent shall not claim any damages against the petitioner for the so called allegations made in the writ petition.

(3) The respondents are at liberty to approach the petitioner-Company to settle their claim, if any, under the provisions of the Act, if they have an award in their possession within two months from today. If such awards are produced before the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to question the same before the appropriate forum within a month thereafter. If and when such appeals are filed by the petitioner-Company the appellate forum shall decide the same on merits without reference to the period of limitation.

(4) with the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

(5) Ordered accordingly.”

5. Based upon the disposal of the said Writ Petition, the Petitioner herein again appeared before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for initiating recovery proceeding and an Order was passed in his favour on 14.1.2008 (Annexure P-5). This time the Controlling Authority had ordered for payment of Rs.3,64,424/-. This Order dated 14.1.2008 was again challenged by Respondent No.1 in a bunch of