DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. DHANWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issues involved in these appeals are identical, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment and order.

(2.) The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 20th September, 2004, passed by the learned Single Judge directing for payment of retirement benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, unpaid salary etc to the respondents. The appellant, namely, Delhi Transport Corporation, did not pay the aforesaid retiral benefits to the respondents on the pretext that the respondents have not vacated the residential accommodations provided by the Corporation.

(3.) The principal question that was urged and decided by the learned Single Judge was whether an employer can withhold retiral benefits of a retired person, who has no proceedings pending against him, on the ground that the retiree continues to be in occupation of the accommodation provided by the employer. The learned Single Judge held that the Corporation could not have withheld the payment of gratuity on account of non-vacation of government allotted accommodation and non-production of no due certificate. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion the learned Single Judge referred to the provisions of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 mandates that the employer shall determine the gratuity amount payable irrespective of the fact as to whether any application to that effect is made or not. It further mandates issue of notice in writing to the employee as well as the controlling authority of the amount so determined. Sub-section 3 makes a statutory provision for payment of interest. Payment of interest could be exempted only if the delay is on account of some default on the part of the employee.