IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No.2663 of 2021

The Managing Director, Punjab & Sind Bank, HO-21, Rajendra

Place, New Delhi-110001, through it’s General Manager, Punjab

and Sind Bank, Zonal Office 30, Mohebbewala, Saharanpur Road,

Dehradun.

..................Petitioner

-versus-

1. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dehradun.

2. Controlling Authority under P.G.Act, 1972 and Regional

Labour Commissioner (Central), A-49, Sector -62, Noida.

3. Sri Ankur Singh, R/o 164, Mugal Pura, Faizabad,

U.P.-224001.

.............Respondents

Advocates appeared in the case:-

For Appellant

: Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, learned

counsel for the petitioner.

For Respondents

:

Date of hearing and Judgement : 13.12.2021

Sri S.K.Mishra, J.

1.

Heard T. P. S. Takuli, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

2.

In this writ application, the petitioner being the

M.D., Punjab & Sind Bank, has prayed to quash

the final order passed by the Appellate Authority

under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,

1

(hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’ for brevity),

and

Deputy

Chief

Labour

Commissioner,

(Central), Dehradun confirming the order passed

by the Controlling Authority under the Payment

of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the Regional Labour

Commissioner (C) India, in the Claim Application

No. N-36(43)/2020-RLC, by virtue of the order

impugned, the learned Controlling Authority

directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.

1,46,230/- as gratuity along with simple interest

@ 10% per annum on the amount as per Section

7 (3-A) of the Act from the date it became payable

i.e. 05.06.2019 till the date of actual payment.

We have carefully examined the judgements

impugned in this case, and find that the learned

Controlling Authority has very carefully examined

the provisions of law and fact of the case.

3.

It is not disputed that the respondent has worked

in the factory about 4 years and 294 days and,

hence, the controlling authority applying the

provisions of Section 2(A) read with Section 25-

B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, relying upon

the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Surendra Kumar Verma and others vs. The

Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour

Court,

New

Delhi

and

another,[1980(4)SCC443]

has

come

to

the

conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay

gratuity. There is confirming judgments by the

two authorities under the Payment of Gratuity

Act.

2

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy

the Court that there is any substantial issue

which should be decided in this matter. In course

of the arguments, it is submitted that if this order

is upheld, then there may be other applications

filed by some other persons. Unfortunately, that

is not a ground to admit a writ application. If any

other employee is similar situated seeks an

application that will be considered on its merit.

But, in order to obviate such filing of further

applications by other aggrieved employees, the

writ application cannot be admitted. Hence, the

writ application is dismissed being devoid of

merit.

5.

There shall be no order as to costs.

6.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on

proper application.

(S.K.Mishra)

Judge

KKS

3