TEXMACO LIMITED Vs. RAM DHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of writ petitions is directed against theorders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, under thePayment of Gratuity Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. These petitions raise the common question of law and I will proceed to dispose of thesame by one common order.

(2.) It will only be necessary to give broad facts, with regard to the firstpetition, to determine the nature of controversy between the parties. Respondent No. 1 joined the service of the petitioner company, which was at that timeknown as Birla Textiles on 1/01/1943. On Jan 2/01/1964 he wasallotted quarter in the premises of the said Mill. The respondent retired fromservice on 16/06/1983. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 1 wasallotted quarter on the basis of the licence fee of Rs. 3.75.00 per month, on thecondition that he will vacate the accommodation within" 4 days of the cessationof the service, from the management, but he did not do so nor he obtained"No Objection Certificate" from the Estate Department, for clearance of hisdues. Therefore, his dues, including the gratuity amount, could not be released.The respondent No. 1 on 14/04/1986, applied to the Controlling Authority,under the Act, claiming a sum of Rs. 18,360.00, as gratuity amount and 9 percent compound interest on the last drawn pay of Rs. 800.00 per month. He alsomoved an application for condonation of delay in filing the application fordirections for payment of his gratuity. The petitioner Management filed repliesto both the applications. The Controlling Authority ordered the payment ofgratuity on the ground, that there is no provision in the Act, where it is provided that in the event of failure of the vacation of the quarter by the workman,the amount of gratuity can be withheld. Taking into consideration the facts,stated in the order and 40 years of service, which respondent No. 1 had put inwith the Company, respondent No. 1 was held entitled to payment ofRs. 17,076.92 as gratuity. The Controlling Authority further awarded paymentof interest at the rate of 10 per cent on the said amount of gratuity. The petitioner company felt aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, andfiled an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act. The Appellate Authority held thatthe Management failed to comply with the provisions of law, by not paying theamount of gratuity, due to the respondent No. 1 and the said gratuity amountcannot be withheld, simply on the ground of delay. The finding of the Controlling Authority that the amount of gratuity cannot be linked with the vacation ofthe quarter, was also affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The respondent No.I was held entitled to the payment of gratuity, as awarded by the ControllingAuthority, along with 10 per cent simple interest.

(3.) The same or similar relief was granted to the other respondentworkmen and the petitioner company has impugned the same by means of thisand other writ petitions before this Court. The petitioner company has statedthat the gratuity of certain workmen was withheld because they did not vacatethe company's quarters, and some workmen were not entitled to the samebecause they had resigned from the service of the company and the workmenwere also not entitled to the same because they had moved the Authority bymeans of belated applications.