MOTHOLA TEA ESTATE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby an order No. N-91/PGA/92/6620-21, dt. 3/12/2015 passed by the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum- Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Dibrugarh has been put to challenge. By the said order, the petitioner has been directed to pay the gratuity amount quantified at Rs.5,81,726.54 to the respondent no. 3.

(2.) As per the facts projected, the husband of the respondent no. 3 was initially appointed as the Manager of the petitioner-Tea Estate and was, at the relevant time, holding the post of General Manager of the petitioner's Company. Owing to certain serious medical ailments, the late husband of the respondent no. 3 had taken advance payments of Rs.6.00 lakhs in different installments against the gratuity payable to him. The employee, unfortunately passed away on 15/12/2014 due to cardiac ailment and thereafter on 20/3/2015, the respondent no. 3 who is the widow had filed an application before the respondent no. 2 for payment of gratuity. Initially, the respondent no. 2 had passed an ex parte order for payment of gratuity on 8/6/2015 which was the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)/4034/2015. This Court vide an order dtd. 9/9/2015 had remanded the matter to be decided afresh. After the said remand, the matter was again taken for consideration wherein the petitioner -Management had adduced evidence through two numbers of witnesses. The mainstay of the case of the petitioner is on 3 nos. of debit vouchers which were issued for advance payment to the late husband during his lifetime and it is contended that such advances were on account of gratuity. It is the case of the petitioner that without appreciating those documents which were duly accepted, the impugned order for payment of gratuity has been made.

(3.) I have heard Shri S Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. K Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner-Management. I have also heard Shri M Chetia, learned State Counsel, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well as Shri S Bora, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no. 3.