LAWS(KAR)-2012-8-536

MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S KORES INDIA LTD., ASHFORD CHAMBERS, 3RD FLOOR NO. 301/302 AND 202, LADY JAMSHETJI ROAD, MAHIM (WEST) MUMBAI - 400016 AND THE BRANCH MANAGER KORES INDIA LTD., NO. 46/D, 1ST FLOOR, LALBAGH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560027 Vs. SRI VIS

Decided On August 07, 2012
Managing Director M/S Kores India Ltd., Ashford Chambers, 3Rd Floor No. 301/302 And 202, Lady Jamshetji Road, Mahim (West) Mumbai - 400016 And The Branch Manager Kores India Ltd., No. 46/D, 1St Floor, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore - 560027 Appellant
V/S
Sri Vis Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are by the Management, questioning the order of originally the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Respondent No. 1 had filed a claim petition under Section 4 sub -section (1) before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act interalia claiming that he is entitled for gratuity to the tune of Rs. 1,31,728/ - interalia contending that, he was appointed on 14.11.1984 and he tendered his resignation on 16.12.2002, as such, he had put in 18 years of service. The claim petition was opposed by the Management interalia alleging that the respondent No. 1 had committed misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 11,61,284/ -. In this regard, a criminal case was also lodged. Though the respondent No. 1 had tendered resignation, but same has not been accepted. Further, the claim petition before the Controlling Authority is not maintainable.

(2.) BEFORE the Controlling Authority, though such contention is raised, the Controlling Authority refers to the objection raised by the Management at para -6.1 and 6.2 and conveniently does not even hold whether the resignation is accepted or not, whether the service of the respondent No. 1 has come to an end or terminated, there is absolutely no finding as to on what basis, gratuity is calculated.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, though have no jurisdiction, but have entertained the claim petition and passed the order. He also submitted that, the amount misappropriated is Rs. 11,61,284/ -, it is not recoverable from the account of the respondent No. 1