CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR HINDUSTAN PHOTO FILMS MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD THE NILGIRIS Vs. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed by the Chairman and Managing Director, M/s.Hindustan Photo Films, the wholly owned company by the Central Government. THE challenge made in this writ petition is to the common order passed by the first respondent in Appeal Nos.280 to 326-A/2007 dated 22.07.2007. THE writ petition was admitted on 31.10.2007. Pending writ petition, this court granted an interim stay. For contesting respondents, Mr.K.Elango, learned counsel appears.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 3 to 50 were employees of the petitioner company and they moved the second respondent " Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 with Gratuity Appeals Nos. 299 to 326-A/2007 claiming a difference in gratuity payable to them. Their claim was based upon the interim relief granted to them. Therefore, they moved the applications before the second respondent claiming the computation of the interim relief as part of the wage and for non-payment, they claimed 10% simple interest. The second respondent " Controlling Authority by order dated 04.10.2006 dismissed the claim petitions on the ground that similar issue relating to the same is pending on the file of this Court in W.A.No.498 and 499 of 2006 and closed the individual claim petitions. Against the order dated 04.10.2006, the respondents 3 to 50 preferred Appeal before the first respondent " Appellate Authority in P.G.Appeal Nos.280 to 326-A of 2007.

(3.) SINCE the claim of gratuity was based upon the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 being a special enactment any claim for payment has to be raised before the authorities under the Act and not before any other forum. This position of law has been clarified by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Labour Court, Jullundur and other reported in (1980) 1 SCC 4. In paragraph No.7, the Supreme Court had observed that the Payment of Gratuity Act being a complete code containing detailed provisions covering all the essential features of a scheme for payment of gratuity ; it creates the right of payment of gratuity, indicates when the right will accrue, and lays down the principles for quantification of the gratuity. It provides further for recovery of the amount, and contains an especial provision that compound interest at nine per cent per annum will be payable on the delayed payment. For the enforcement of its provisions, the Act provides for the appointment of a controlling authority, who is entrusted with the task of administering the Act. The fulfilment of the rights and obligations of the parties are made his responsibility, and he has been invested with an amplitude of power for the full discharge of that responsibility. Any error committed by the Controlling Authority can also be corrected in appeal by the appropriate government or an appellate authority particularly constituted under the Act. Therefore, it was held that the inescapable conclusion was that the preliminary independent proceedings due under the Act must be taken only under the Act and not in any other forum. Therefore, the first objection, that the workmen must go before an Arbitrator fails.