BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE Vs. DY. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application filed by the 3rd respondent under section 7(4)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') having been allowed by the second respondent in exercise of the power under section 7(5) and the petitioner having been directed to pay the difference in gratuity amount of Rs. 74,092.00 with interest at 10% p.a. from 1.11.2005 vide Order as at Annexure-A, the petitioner had filed under section 7(7), an appeal vide Annexure-B, before the first respondent. The said appeal having been dismissed by an Order dated 11.5.2015 vide Annexure-C, this writ petition was filed.

(2.) Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned advocate for the petitioner, having regard to the settled position of law, confined the consideration of the petition only with regard to the awarding of interest for the period preceding the filing of application by the 3rd respondent. She submitted that the 3rd respondent having retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.2005 and approached the second respondent with the application, after lapse of a years and the delay being attributable to the omissions on his part, the awarding of interest even for the delayed period is arbitrary. Learned Counsel submitted that a specific ground having been raised in the appeal filed vide Annexure - B and point No. 6 having been raised for consideration by the first respondent, the same has not been considered in accordance with law and hence, the order passed by the second respondent as at Annexure-A with regard to the upholding of awarding of interest by the first respondent, as per the Order passed vide Annexure-C, is bad and liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned orders to the extent of the direction issued for payment of interest for the period prior to the of the application before the second respondent is most arbitrary and interference is called for.

(3.) Sri L. Shekar learned advocate for the 3rd respondent on the other hand supported the awarding of interest by the second respondent and its upholding by the first respondent. Learned Counsel submitted that the gratuity amount having not been deposited within the period specified under section 7(3) of the Act, the second respondent is justified in directing the payment of interest at 10% p.a. with effect from 1.11.2005.