R M ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. KHUSHALBHAI MANILAL CHAVDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. Ms.Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel, waives service for respondent No.1 and Mr.Jayaswal, learned AGP, waives service for respondents No.2 and 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.01.2012 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in SCA No.830 of 2012, whereby learned single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, did not interfere with the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) The short facts of the case are that, as per the appellant, respondent No.1 retired from service with effect from 15.11.2000 since he had reached the age of superannuation on completion of 60 years of age, whereas as per respondent No.1, he had not completed the requisite length of service nor had he reached the age of superannuation. Thereupon, a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act was raised, which ultimately came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, being Ref.(LCA) No.110 of 2001. The Labour Court at the conclusion of the reference, passed the award whereby the action of the appellant of terminating the services of the respondent on 15.11.2000 was held to be illegal. However, pending the reference, as the company was closed, reinstatement of the respondent was not considered and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was ordered to be paid to the respondent as lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The said award came to be passed on 12.3.2009. Thereafter, it appears that an application was made by respondent No.1 before the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity on the basis of the award passed by the Labour Court and it was prayed that since his services were terminated on 15.11.2000 and he had completed 28 years of service and he was being paid wages, the gratuity be fixed at Rs.46,200/- plus interest @ 10% per annum. The competent authority, after hearing both sides, passed order on 31.7.2010 whereby the appellant was directed to pay the amount of Rs.46,200/- with interest @ 10% per annum from 15.11.2000. The matter was carried in appeal and the said appeal came to be dismissed, against which petition was preferred before this Court by way of SCA No.830 of 2012. Learned single Judge, upon finding that there are concurrent orders of two lower authorities, did not interfere with the order of the lower authorities and dismissed the petition. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before us.