STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD Vs. TARAKNATH SENGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent was an employee of the first petitioner (hereafter the company). On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.12.1998.

(2.) The first respondent had the occasion to approach the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereafter the Act), since the company did not release gratuity to which he was entitled in law. The company resisted his claim. According to it, despite cessation of employer-employee relationship, the first respondent did not vacate the official accommodation that had been allotted to him. It was only on 20.4.2004 that the company could recover possession thereof. For unauthorized occupation of official accommodation, the first respondent was liable to pay penal rent amounting to Rs. 81,562.50p. That apart, he was liable to pay outstanding house rent of Rs.36/- and outstanding electricity charges of Rs.41,891/- apart from bearing the charges of a missing RRC slab worth Rs.400/-. The company was ready and willing to pay gratuity to the first respondent after deducting a sum of Rs.l,23,889.50p from the gratuity payable; being Rs.1,99,185/-. The net payable amount of Rs.75,295.90p was offered to the first respondent who refused to accept it. In terms of the Gratuity Rules of the company, it was authorised to deduct gratuity payable to an ex-employee if he did not vacate accommodation provided to him. It was, therefore, contended that over and above the sum which was offered to the first respondent, he was not entitled to anything more.

(3.) The Controlling Authority did not accept the contention of the company and by its order dated 24.7.2006, directed the company to make full payment of gratuity i.e. Rs. 1,99,185/- within 30 days from date of the order.