COMMISSIIONER SATHYAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .These writ petitions have been filed praying for writ of certiorari to call for the ecords in P.G.A.Nos.21 of 1995 and 10 of 1995 respectively, dated August 31, 1995, on he file of the appellate authority the first espondent herein confirming the order, dated November 21 1994, made in P.G. Petition Mo. 337 of 1994 on the file of the controlling Authority the second respondent herein and to quash the same.

(2.) . The brief facts culled out from the affidavits filed by the petitioner are: The third respondent herein was employed as a sweeper under the petitioner-municipality and attained the age of superannuation on February 28, 1991. As per G. O;Ms. No. 600, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated September 14, 1989, all employees of municipalities are now deemed to be Government employees and accordingly after retirement, the respondent is being paid pension of Rs.375 every month apart from the benefits payable under the Death/Retirement Gratuity Scheme. In spite of the third respondent deriving the above benefits, he chose to make an application on May 10, 1994, 3 years after his retirement, under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the controlling authority the second respondent herein. The said application was opposed by the petitioner herein on two grounds: (1) there was a huge delay in making out the application; and (2) the third respondent could not avail of double benefits, i.e., get pensionary benefits and also claim gratuity, since, the municipalities were exempt from the provisions of the Act. The second respondent herein condoned the delay and proceeded to take up the application as P.G. Petition No.337 of 1994. While passing an order in that petition, the second respondent upheld the contentions of the petitioner municipality that the third respondent could not derive double benefits - both under the Pension Scheme as also under Payment of Gratuity Act. However, the second respondent chose to hold that the petitioner- municipality though cannot be burdened in entirety, it was bound to pay some amount under the Act, after deducting the amount paid under the Death/Retirement Gratuity Scheme, and arrived at a sum of Rs.23,536 as the amount payable under the Act to the third respondent herein. Thereafter the third respondent herein preferred an appeal in P.G.A.No. 10/1995 before the appellate authority the first respondent herein in so far as the denial of interest on the amount awarded. The petitioner-municipality also filed an appeal in P.G.A. No.21 of 1995 before the first respondent challenging the order of the second respondent. The first respondent without going into the maintainability of the petition filed by the third respondent allowed the appeal P.G.A. No. 10 of 1995 filed by the third respondent and awarded by the second respondent. Consequently the appeal filed by the petitioner municipality in P.G.A. No. 21 of 1995 was dismissed. It is against the said order of the first respondent the petitioner municipality has filed W.P. No. 4009 of 1996 and against the order passed by the first respondent in P.G. A. No. 10 of 1995 awarding 12 per cent interest on the amount awarded by the second respondent the petitioner herein has filed W.P.No.4010 of 1996.

(3.) . Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides.