DINAKARA DONDU KULKARNI Vs. JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which falls for determination is whether this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act which is at Annexure-A.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the competent authority had directed on the finding recorded on Issue No. 6 that the applicant would be eligible for compound interest on the delayed payment of gratuity at the rate of 9% per annum and therefore, the Appellate Authority was in error in directing that the competent authority erred in law in awarding compound interest as it is opposed to law.

(3.) In a sense the petitioner may be right. But, on a strict interpretation of Section 6 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the competent authority, respondent-2 namely, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum, has done no more than indicating the eligibility of the petitioner to the amount of gratuity together with compound interest at 9% per annum. By that, he did no more than pointing out the law on the subject. Section 8 reads as follows :