CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. APPELLANT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners before this Court are officers of western Coal Fields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian companies Act, 1956. They challenge the order dated 28-9-2004, passed by the regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur and Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, rejecting their appeal and further revising the order of Controlling Authority to their prejudice.

(2.) THE present respondent No. 2, a Medical Officer, working as Deputy chief Medical Officer with petitioners approached the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act and claimed that she has not been paid her full gratuity. For the purpose of present matter, it is not necessary to go into the length of service or other aspects because those details are not in dispute. The complication has arisen only because of the date of termination of her services. The respondent no. 2 claimed that she worked up to 30th September, 1997 and employer therefore could not have calculated her gratuity for service only upto 18-9-1997. It is to be noted that on 18-9-1997, ceiling on maximum amount of gratuity payable under the Act was Rs. 1,00,000/- and by amendment which came into force on 24-9-1997, it was raised to Rs. 3,50,000/ -. Respondent No. 2 contended that she has worked upto 30th September, 1997 and she has also been paid salary accordingly. The present petitioners filed their reply before the Controlling authority and contended that respondent No. 2 worked only upto 18-9-1997 and she was wrongly or inadvertently paid in excess i. e. upto 30th September, 2007. They pointed out from their calculations that amount of salary paid in excess to respondent No. 2 for period from 19-9-1997 to 30-9-1997 was also recovered from her gratuity dues when the same were paid to her. The Controlling authority did not accept this story and it also did not accept the deduction of amount of Rs. 32,000/- on account of illegal occupation charges of quarter from her gratuity amount. The authority, therefore, vide its order dated 10th november, 2008, found respondent No. 2 entitled to more amount of gratuity. This order determined the amount of Rs. 2,82,000/- as due and payable and also directed the interest at 10% upon it. It was challenged before the Appellate authority (respondent No. 1) by petitioners by filing appeal under section 7 (7) of gratuity Act. The petitioners contended that period of service upto 18-9-1997 was never disputed by respondent No. 2 and she also did not dispute the deduction of amount of Rs. 32,000/- on account of occupation charges of the quarter. They contended that service till 30th September, 1997, therefore, ought not to have been accepted by the Controlling Authority. They also produced communication issued to them by respondent No. 2 on 19-8-1998 while vacating the quarter in her possession. According to them, respondent No. 2 was, therefore, estopped from filing any proceedings before the Controlling Authority and in any case if there was any rights in her favour if she expressly waived those rights. The Appellate Authority by order dated 28-9-2004 did not accept this contention and while accepting the findings recorded by Controlling Authority, it found that the respondent No. 2 was in fact terminated on 18-4-1998 i. e. the date on which communication accepting her resignation from 18-9-1997 was issued. It, therefore, found her entitled to claim gratuity upto 18-4-1998 and granted her that benefit. It is thereafter that the petitioners approached this Court in present writ petition.

(3.) ON 11th August, 2005, this Court while issuing Rule in the matter, noted that petitioners had already deposited an amount of Rs. 4,71,802/- before the controlling Authority vide Cheque dated 23rd July, 2004. The Court also noticed that as per appellate order, respondent No. 1 was to refund amount of Rs. 14,179/- to the petitioner. Thus, after deducting that amount from the amount deposited, amount of Rs. 4,57,623/- has been allowed to be withdrawn by the present respondent No. 2 on her furnishing an undertaking that she would be accepting the aforesaid amount subject to result of petition and if the petitioners succeed, she would not claim any equity. Accordingly, after furnishing the undertaking, the respondent No. 2 has withdrawn the amount of Rs. 4,57,623/ -.