GUNDU DAJI DESAI Vs. APLAB LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As all the petitions arise out of a common judgment and order, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of convenience and clarity, the facts stated in the petition filed by the employer are treated as the primary facts of the dispute.

(2.) The present writ petition is directed against the judgment dtd. 9/11/2023 passed by the learned Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, who is also the learned Judge of the Fourth Labour Court at Thane, in Application (PGA) No.173 of 2022. The petition also challenges the judgment dtd. 19/10/2024 delivered by the learned Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, who is the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Mumbai, in Appeal (PGA) No.8 of 2024. The petitioner company is a limited company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It carries on the business of manufacturing UPS systems and industrial AC and DC power units and engages employees in different categories for its production and administrative activities. At the time of his resignation, the respondent was working in the capacity of Chief Regional Manager and his last drawn basic salary was Rs.36,500.00 per month. The respondent tendered his resignation without giving the prescribed notice period of three months as required under the rules of the company. However, in his resignation letter he expressed willingness to compensate the notice period of two months, which amounted to Rs.71,783..00 The respondent also furnished an undertaking authorising the Accounts Officer to inform the Head Office and Accounts Department to adjust an amount of Rs.2,09,443.00 which was pending in his name on account of regularisation as advised by him to the Corporate Head Office.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that the respondent did not submit Form "I" to the employer claiming gratuity, nor was there any communication from the respondent to the company after his resignation. The respondent also did not personally approach the company for payment of gratuity after leaving service in the year 2015. According to the petitioners, the respondent for the first time filed an application before the Controlling Authority under Sec. 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act in the year 2022 seeking payment of gratuity, which was clearly beyond the time prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.