IFICO REFRECTORIES PLANT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the Deputy Labour commissioner -cum -Controlling Authority (Gratuity) Act, Hazaribagh directing the petitioner to pay interest @ 9% per annum from 9.8.2005 on the total amount of retiral benefit including the amount of gratuity.

(2.) MR . Piprawal, submitted that the father of respondent No. 3 -Pyaso Devi took voluntary retirement far back in the year 1998, but succession certificate was furnished only in the year 2005 for payment of retiral benefit. Then she filed W.P.(S) No. 484 of 2007 for payment of retiral benefits, which was disposed of on 6.8.2007, directing the management to pay all the retiral dues to her within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. A copy of the same was produced on 14.8.2007 and payment of the admitted amount was made, but there was delay of 19 days in making such payment. The respondent No. 3 also filed a contempt case being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 730 of 2007 alleging non compliance of the order dated 6.8.2007 and claiming interest for the entire period in view of the order passed in the said writ petition. However, the said case was disposed of on 26.2.2008 with liberty to her to approach the authority concerned for the said claim. But, instead of approaching the authority concerned, she moved the Deputy Labour Commissioner who passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay interest on the entire dues including the gratuity from 9.8.2005 to 11.10.2007 on basis of the said order passed by this Court. He further submitted that the petitioner deposited the interest of 19 days amounting to Rs. 1232.45 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. He lastly submitted that petitioner is a Government Company and is tying to revive after it was declared sick by BIFR.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, I am satisfied that the Deputy Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It is true that there was delay of 19 days, but for that the respondent 3 was given liberty to approach the authority concerned namely the respondents in the said writ petition/contempt case. The Deputy Labour Commissioner was not a party in the said writ petition/contempt case. There is nothing on the record to show that for the purpose of payment of gratuity and interest thereon, the respondent No. 3 approached the authority under the Gratuity Act at any point of time. Admittedly, she moved this Court for payment of all retiral benefits including the gratuity in which the said order was passed, in the writ petition. As per the said order passed in contempt case she was to approach the authority concerned for her claim of interest but for the reasons best known to her, she approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The Deputy Labour Commissioner had no power to pass the impugned order in view of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court.