JEHANGIR TEXTILE MILLS Vs. SAHEBSINGH CHOTESINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common question of law and facts arise in these group of petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) In all these petitions, respective Petitioners-Management has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned recovery notice dated 11.11.2003 issued by Respondent No. 2 Mamlatdar and Alien Recovery, Ahmedabad (Annexure A to the petition) which have been issued in favour of concerned workmen-Respondent herein to recover the amount due and payable under the orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

(3.) The only submission made by Shri Mehta, learned advocate for Nanavati & Nanavati appearing for the respective Petitioners is that in view of the fact that the concerned workmen-Respondent herein are in unauthorized occupation and retention of quarters allotted by the Petitioner-company even after attaining the age of superannuation, Petitioner has right to withhold the gratuity. Shri Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective Petitioners has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 7273 of 2002 by submitting that the learned Single Judge in a similar set of circumstances and with respect to the very Petitioner-company has permitted the Petitioner to retain the amount of gratuity till the pendency of the proceedings before the competent authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid order has passed an order that Petitioners shall pay an amount of gratuity to the Respondent-workmen after the deduction of the dues outstanding on the part of the Respondents. Therefore, it is submitted that when the concerned Respondent-workmen are in unauthorized occupation of the quarters allotted by the company and the proceedings are pending before the competent authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and in case the Petitioner succeeds, concerned workmen are liable to pay the rent/mesne profit /damages for unauthorized retention of the quarters. Therefore, it is submitted that till the said proceedings are concluded and till the concerned workmen are in unauthorized occupation of the quarters, Petitioners can withhold the amount of gratuity and therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned recovery notices issued by Respondent No. 2 to recover an amount of gratuity as per the order passed by the appropriate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.