MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT CO OPERATIVE CORPORATION OF ODISHA LIMITED Vs. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT & ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner-Corporation challenging the order dtd. 31/10/2016 passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Rayagada, shortly hereinafter, 'Controlling Authority' in P.G. Case No.02 of 2016, vide which it has been ordered for payment of Rs.53,587.00towards interest to the Applicant (Opposite Party No.2) within thirty days of the receipt of the said order towards delayed payment of gratuity.

(2.) The order dtd. 31/10/2016 in P.G. Case No.02 of 2016 has been challenged basically on the ground that number of departmental proceedings and dispute cases were pending against the Opposite Party No.2 at the time of his compulsory retirement from service. As the exact amount recoverable from him was not known to the employer, the gratuity amount was withheld. On finalization of liability account, the Opposite Party No.2 made an application on 14/12/2009 for payment of admissible gratuity amount. Pursuant to submission of such application, the gratuity amount was paid to him after adjustment of the recoverable dues from other retiral dues. Therefore, in view of the proviso to Sec. 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, shortly hereinafter, 'the Act, 1972", the payment of gratuity got delayed due to the fault of the Opposite Party No.2. The delay cannot be attributed to the Petitioner-Corporation directing it to make huge payment towards interest granting premium to a dishonest employee. The Opposite Party No.1 has passed the impugned order mechanically without application of mind directing payment of interest in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

(3.) A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 justifying the impugned order passed in P.G. Case No.02 of 2016. That apart, it has also been stated in the Counter that, in view of the alternative remedy available under Sec. 7(7) of the Act, 1972, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The right to appeal under Sec. 7(7) of the Act, 1972 becomes a vested right only when precondition of deposit is complied with. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.