Judgment:
1 Writ Petition No. 21636/2012 24.1.2013 Shri O.P. Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
Heard.
Order dated 20.11.2012 passed by Controlling Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Regional Labour Commissioner (C) Bhopal is being assailed vide this petition.
By impugned order the Controlling Authority in an application under Rule 10 (1) of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 filed by respondent No. 1 has rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner employer as to maintainability of the application.
Vide application in question, the respondent No. 1 has claimed the difference of gratuity arising due to enhancement of Ceiling of Gratuity to Rs.10 lacs. As having voluntary retired under modified voluntary scheme w.e.f. 16.7.2009, the respondent No. 1 was paid Rs.3,50,000/ towards gratuity. The ceiling was later on enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/.
The difference when not paid led the respondent workman to file application under Rule 10 (1) of 1972 Rules before Controlling Authority.
Preliminary objection as to maintainability was raised on two counts, firstly, that the enhanced ceiling limit came into existence w.e.f 24.5.2010 and the respondent having retired earlier is not entitled for the same and secondly, that 2 the scheme of retirement having been questioned in W.P. No. 20137/2011 (S) the claim suffers from res judicata.
This objection has been overruled by the Controlling Authority by impugned order holding : “The evidence of the parties have not been recorded, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of non applicant pertains to office memorandum dated 02.09.2008 which in my opinion canNo. be decided before recording of evidence.
The preliminary issue should be decided along with other issues on merits after recording of evidence of both the parties.”
After giving due consideration to the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and finding no material on record that in Writ Petition No. 20137/2011 (S) the petitioner has claimed the difference amount of the gratuity, this Court does No. find any ground to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the preliminary objection as to maintainability of application under Rule 10 (1) of 1972 Rules.
In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE VT/