THE CHAIRMAN, MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MEENA PLAZA, SOUTH OF MUSEUM Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

(2.) PETITIONER is the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank through its Chairman. In view of the order, this Court is inclined to pass on the present writ petition it would not be necessary to afford respondent no. 4 an opportunity by issuing notice of the application. Petitioner is the Bank. Respondent No. 4 was employee of the said Bank. He was departmentally proceeded against and was awarded certain punishments. The respondent no. 4 accepted the order and no appeal thereagainst was filed. Subsequently, he retired with effect from 31.7.2010. Petitioner acting on its own discretion forfeited part of gratuity amount payable to him. An issue was raised by respondent no. 4 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner in terms of the provision of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'Act ') and rules framed there under. By order dated 16.9.2011 (Annexure -5) the same was disposed of directing the petitioner - Bank to make payment of the remaining amount of gratuity together with interest quantified at Rs. 95,967/ -. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner -Bank filed appeal within time before the Labour Commissioner -cum -Appellate Authority enclosing therewith a demand draft of Rs.95,967/ - as required by law and the copy of the order/judgment dated 16.9.2011 authenticated by the original authority served on the Bank. The Appellate Authority by impugned communication dated 2.2.12 (Annexure -9) informed the petitioner as under: -

(3.) IMMEDIATELY thereafter, by communication dated 1/6.3.12 (Annexure -10) the petitioner -Bank was noticed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), (the original authority under the Act) advising the Bank to pay the aforesaid amount as quantified under Annexure -5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on averments made in para 14 of the writ petition submits that in spite of his efforts he could not obtain certified copy of the order dated 16.9.11. This is what the petitioner has stated in para 14: - "Para -14: That, after filing of said memorandum of appeal the petitioner received a letter dated 13.12.2011 through which he was asked to file certified copy of said judgment and order dated 16.9.2011 and also to remove other defects as pointed out in scrutiny of memorandum of appeal. In compliance of said letter the petitioner removed other defects and also contacted the office of the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner -1 (C) -cum -Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for issuance of certified copy of judgment copy of any such order is not being issued and the copy which has been served through registered post is only being given for the needful to the parties. Having come to know about the said fact the petitioner again submitted attested copy of said judgment and order dated 16.9.2011 through his letter dated 15.12.2011 requesting therein to decide the appeal on merit. However, the petitioner again received a letter dated 2.2.2012 issued by the Regional Labour Commissioner, (C) Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, through which his memorandum of appeal alongwith its enclosures has been returned to the petitioner without any adjudication on sole ground that certified copy of judgment and order dated 16.9.2011, as demanded, has not been supplied."