N R S SAHASRABUDHYE SMT Vs. ADDITIONAL CUSTODIAN OF THE NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION THE KOHINOOR MILLS CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Suo Motu Writ Petition, the Petitioner who is a widow of an employee who has served Kohinoor Mills for 38 years, seeks a direction against the Collector of Bombay to initiate recovery proceedings against Additional Custo-dian (N. T. C) pursuant to the Certificate issued under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 read with Rule 19 of the Payment of gratuity (Maharashtra) Rules 1972. The said Certificate is dated December 21, 1984 and it is issued by the Controlling Authority and First Labour Court Bombay in Application (PGA)No. 279 of 1983. As per the said Certificate, the Controlling Authority has directed the Collector to recover Rs. 21,923/-due and payable as gratuity.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this Petition, briefly, are as follows. Petitioner's husband was an employee of Kohinoor Mills for 38 years. He retired on July 1, 1981. On December 20, 1983, petitioner's husband made an application for gratuity being (PGA) No. 279 of 1983. The said application was decided in favour of Petitioner's husband by the Labour Court on December 20, 1983. During the pendency of the said application No. 279 of 1983 before the Labour Court, kohinoor Mill's Management came to be taken over under the provisions of Textile undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 1983. This was on October 18, 1983. Thereafter, on December 20, 1983, Petitioner's husband's application came to be allowed by the labour Court which granted gratuity in favour of the Petitioner's husband amounting to Rs. 21,923/-with interest mentioned therein. No appeal was preferred by National Textile corporation against the said order of the Labour Court dated December 20, 1983. As the amount was not paid, Petitioner's husband took steps to execute and recover the amount awarded by the labour Court. Pursuant to Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 the amount could be recovered by the State Government on the Labour Court issuing the Certificate to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue. On December 21, 1984 the Labour Court granted certificate under Section 8 of the said Act 1972 and directed the Collector to recover the amount awarded in favour of Petitioner's husband as gratuity to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The said Certificate is Annexure-3 to the Petition. By the said Certificate the Labour Court which is also the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act issued a Certificate under section 8 read with Rule 19 of Payment of Gratuity (Maharashtra) Rules 1972 against the kohinoor Mills to the effect that the amount of Rs. 21,923/-due and payable to Petitioners husband as gratuity has not been paid and accordingly the Collector was directed to proceed to recover the said amount together with compound interest from January 20, 1984 as arrears of land revenue under Section 176 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. On May 4, 1985 petitioner's husband died. Petitioner was not paid the amount despite the Certificate being issued under Section 8 of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Ultimately, on February 19, 1985, collector issued warrant of attachment to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue. The amount was not paid. In the above circumstance, the Petitioner as a widow filed suomotu Writ petition in this Court. When the matter came for admission on August 30, 1990, the Division bench of this Court directed the Union of India on behalf of the Additional Custodian, N. T. C. which has come on scene on October 18, 1983 to deposit in this Court by September 20, 1990 rs. 21,923/-being the amount of gratuity payable to the Petitioner and on such deposit the warrant of attachment came to be stayed. Subsequently, the said amount was invested. Petitioner has been paid interest which is accrued from the date of investment on Rs. 21,923/ -. This petition has come up for final hearing today before us.

(3.) MR. Apte the learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that in the present case, n. T. C. has never disputed its liability to pay the gratuity. Mr. Apte contended that the Textile undertaking, namely, Kohinoor Mills was taken over under the provisions of Textile undertakings (Taking over the Management) Act, 1983. This was on October 18, 1983. On december 20, 1983, Petitioner's application came to be granted by the Labour Court. However, n;t,c. did not challenge the said judgment by preferring appeal to the Industrial Court/appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act. Mr. Apte contended that, even today, N. T. C. has not challenged the Certificate issued by the Collector under section 8 of Payment of Gratuity Act. Mr. Apte contended that in the absence of any dispute being raised by N. T. C. , the amount deposited in this Court be paid over to the Petitioner. Mr. Apte contended that the claim for gratuity became crystallised only on December 20, 1983 i. e. , after the appointed date when the labour Court granted application made by the Petitioner's late husband for gratuity. In the circumstances , Mr. Apte contended that the liability accrued after the appointed date and therefore, N. T. C. was liable to pay the amount of gratuity.