BHAILAL KALIDAS BAROT Vs. FACTORY MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition styled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner workman, an ex-employee of the respondent No.1 has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, by which original order of the Controlling Authority awarding an amount of Rs. 87,385.50 with interest was reversed only on the ground that the petitioner was occupying the quarter even after discontinuance of his service. The interesting observation and conclusion of the Appellate Authority in its order dated 1 9/10/2001 may be quoted as under:-

(2.) . It hardly requires any elaboration to discern that the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, travelled far beyond it's jurisdiction and decided issue of payment of gratuity on the basis of a totally extraneous consideration of with-holding of quarter and practically decreed the amount allegedly due by way of penal rent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a recent judgement of the Supreme Court in Gorakhpur University and ors. Vs. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and others, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 591, wherein it is reiterated and emphasised that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by the Government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest. The Supreme Court has also observed that with-holding of quarters allotted while in service, even after retirement without vacating the same has been viewed to be not a valid ground to withhold the disbursement of the terminal benefits. In view of the above clear proposition of law and there being no other dispute or objection as regards payment of gratuity, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is required to be set aside and the original order of the Controlling Authority awarding full amount of gratuity with interest is required to be upheld.

(3.) . The learned Counsel for the respondent, for the first time in this proceeding initiated by the petitioner, raised the objection that the amount deposited by the respondent in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, for filing of appeal, was a deposit and cannot be released either by order of this Court or by the order of the Appellate Authority in view of the fact that the respondent employer company is declared to be a sick industrial undertaking under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It is stated in the affidavit filed on their behalf that the case of the respondent Corporation is registered as Case No. PSU(C-535/92) with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The reference made to the said Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under Section 16 of the said Act is pending before the Board. It was, on that basis, contended that the reference before the BIFR being pending, the respondent was entitled to the protection as provided under Section 22(1) of the said Act. Referring to the provisions of Section 22 of the said Act, it was argued that direct payment of the deposited amount of gratuity would amount to execution or coercive recovery, which was prohibited by the aforesaid provisions.