Judgment:
CWP No.6789 of 2014 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6789 of 2014 Date of decision:
08. 05.2014 Municipal Council, Mandi Gobindgarh ...Petitioner Vs. The Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Labour Commissioner, Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA ***** Present: Mr. Sanjeev Patyal, Advocate and Mr. Amit Kundra, Advocate for the petitioner. **** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.
(Oral).
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 22.3.2012( Annexure P/4) passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.) and order dated 22.5.2013 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Appellate Authority in favour of respondent no.3.
2. Respondent no.3 had joined service with the petitioner on 8.8.1978 as Executive Officer and had retired on 31.7.2003. He filed an application for payment of gratuity on 3.5.2011 before respondent no.2 claiming balance amount of ` 42,502/- alleging that he had rendered total service of 24 years 11 months and 24 days and he was entitled for the total gratuity of ` 3,18,764/- out of which ` 2,76,262/- only was paid by the petitioner committee. In defence the plea taken was that whatever Kumar Pardeep 2014.05.12 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.6789 of 2014 -2- **** was due under the Punjab Civil Services Rules was paid to him and provisions of the Act did not apply and the matter was pending in a SLP before Hon'ble the Apex Court.
3. The workman took the plea that the matter had been adjudicated by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.15423 of 2008- Municipal Council, Pathankot Vs. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and others decided on 22.9.2008 whereby it had already been held that the exemption granted vide notification dated 31.8.2007 by the appropriate Government is applicable only to those employees of Local Bodies who were appointed on or after 1.4.1990. The Controlling Authority accordingly vide impugned order dated 22.3.2012 (Annexure P/4) accepted the submission of the respondent no.3 and also noticed that this Court in a bunch of matters decided on 20.9.2010 the lead case of which was Civil Writ Petition No.13655 of 2009-Municipal Council, Budhlada Vs. The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972-cum-Labour Commissioner, Punjab and others had issued certain directions. Accordingly, it was held that the application was maintainable and he was entitled for the payment of balance amount of ` 42,502/- and as per provisions of Section 7(3) of the Act, the amount was to be paid within 30 days from the date of retirement and therefore, interest was also liable to be paid. The directions issued by this Court in Municipal Council, Budhlada's case (supra) were also incorporated in the impugned order and held that amount would be paid to the municipal employee on furnishing adequate security/indemnity bonds to the Kumar Pardeep 2014.05.12 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.6789 of 2014 -3- **** satisfaction of the undersigned with a clear undertaking that in the event of acceptance of SLP by the Apex Court, the employee shall be required to refund the said amount along with interest to the respondent Municipal Council.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual discussion, it has been clear that issue has been settled by this Court regarding the entitlement of the gratuity and it was not the case of the petitioner that respondent no.3-employee was not entitled. The only issue was whether the amount was payable under the Punjab Civil Services Rules or under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Once this Court has already held that exemption would only apply to the employees who were appointed on or after 1.4.1990, no exception can be found with the reasoning of the Controlling Authority. The interest of the Council has already been protected keeping in view of the directions issued by this Court in Municipal Council, Budhlada's case (supra) and as such interest of the Council would be looked after in case the issue is decided in favour of the Council as the private respondent is bound to refund the amount with interest in case the Apex Court reverses the judgment.
5. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference and the present writ petition is dismissed in limine. 08.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Pka JUDGE Kumar Pardeep 2014.05.12 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh