STATE OF U P Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) List revised. No one appears for the respondent no.2 - the employee. Heard Shri P.P.Chaudhary, learned standing counsel for the petitioner-State.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against order dated 3.8.1998 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Agra in Misc. Case No.61 of 1997 Braham Singh Mallik vs. Executive Engineer and others. That was a case under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. Braham Singh Mallik-respondent no.2 was an employee of Irrigation Department, Uttar Pradesh. The case was initiated on his application through which he claimed about Rs.2 lacs. The main item was of gratuity of about Rs.1,65,000/- and about Rs.20,000/- interest thereupon uptil June 1997. Respondent no.2 retired on 31.5.1996. Petitioner took up the defence that an amount of Rs.72,519/- had been directed to be recovered from the petitioner when he was in service as that was the loss caused to the department due to the negligence and active participation of the petitioner in manipulation of records.

(3.) On page-3 (para-3) of the certified copy of the impugned order the entire gratuity payable to the petitioner was stated to be Rs.97,515/-. However, on page-8 (para-8) it was mentioned to be Rs.1,59,225/-. Admittedly an amount of Rs.24,996/- towards gratuity had been paid to the respondent no.2 after filing of the case/application. The Labour Court held that as inquiry against the petitioner had not been completed hence the amount of Rs.72,000/- and odd could not be deducted from his gratuity. Accordingly, through the impugned order it was directed that petitioner should pay Rs.1,34,229/- as unpaid gratuity to respondent no.2 alongwith 18% interest. An amount of Rs.10,310/- was also directed to be paid as unpaid travelling allowance. 18% interest was directed to be paid thereupon also. In that regard the contention of the department was that the bills for the same had been presented beyond the time fixed hence the said allowance had not been paid. Petitioner also contended before the Labour Court that respondent no.2 was not a workman.