Full Judgment
W.P.NO.17104/2011 08-08-2012.
Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Girishm Jain, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Shri O.P.Namdeo, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
The petitioner was an employee working in the establishment of South Eastern Coalfields Limited and was posted in Nowrozabad Sub Area, District Umaria.
He had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 01-03-2005 and after his retirement when gratuity was not paid, on the ground that he has retained the company accommodation, he filed an application before the Controlling Authority, respondent no.4 for seeking a direction for payment of gratuity in accordance to the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Respondent no.4 the Controlling Authority passed an order dated 17-04-2009 directing for payment of gratuity to the petitioner.
This order passed by the respondent no.4 the Controlling Authority was challenged by the employer before the Appellate Authority, respondent no.3 and by the impugned order dated 13-10-2009 directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the gratuity amount after vacating the company accommodation and producing the “No Dues Certificate'.
It was further directed by the 2 respondent no.3 that the petitioner shall not be entitled to the interest for the aforesaid period, It is aggrieved by this direction issued by the respondent no.3 with regard to producing the 'No Dues Certificate”.
and denial of the interest, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court.
Inviting my attention to certain principles laid down by a Bench of this court in the case of W.C.L.versus Gyanwati and others 2012(1) MPLJ.456 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the payment of gratuity cannot be withheld on the ground of not vacation of the accommodation or submitting “No Dues Certificate”.In view of the law laid down in the case of Gyanwati(supra).it is stated that the claim cannot be withheld.
The question involved in this writ petition has been considered not only in the case of Gyanwati(supra) but as also recently by this court in W.P.No.14712/2010 (South Eastern Coalfields Limited versus Rajendra Singh) after taking note of the law laid down in the case of Gyanwati and the matter has been dealt with in the following manner: “After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the record, it is said by the petitioner that the quarter so occupied by the petitioner during employment has not yet vacated, therefore, he is not entitled to claim the gratuity and interest thereon till vacation of the quarter 3 or submitting no dues certificate.
In the opinion of this court the aforesaid issue has been duly considered in the case of W.C.L.versus Gyanwati and others(supra) and decided against the employer.
In such a circumstances, I am unable to disagree with the preposition of the Coordination Bench.
Accordingly, the said preposition is hereby accepted.
The plea so taken by the petitioner in the present case is devoid of any substance in view of the foregoing.
So far as the payment of interest is concerned, it is observed here that the interest may be awarded, if the amount of gratuity became payable on the date of retirement.
It it is not paid within 30 days as per the sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, it is required to be paid mandatorily.
In such a circumstances the order denying interest is without any reason and unsustainable in view of the statutory provision of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
The Controlling Authority has not duly appreciated the issue and appellate authority has rightly decided the said issue.
Accordingly, in the opinion of this court this petition is devoid of any substance and hence, it is dismissed.
The order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for payment of the gratuity and interest is hereby upheld.
In the facts and circumstances of the case no order as to cost.”
4 Taking note of the aforesaid enunciation of law this court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority so far as it directs for denial of interest and production of no dues certificate is unsustainable.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
Directions contained in the impugned order dated 13-10-2009 passed by the respondent no.3 for releasing the payment of gratuity only after producing no dues certificate and not pay interest are quashed.
The directions issued by the Controlling Authority be complied with in the case of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
C.C.as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) hsp JUDGE