Judgment:
CWP No.15517 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH1 CWP No.15517 of 2005 Date of decision:
12. 05.2014 Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala ...Petitioner Vs. Dasondhi Ram and others ...Respondents 2. CWP No.15537 of 2005 Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala ...Petitioner Vs. Dasondhi Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA ***** Present: Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate for respondent no.1. **** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.
(Oral).
1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No.15517 of 2005 and 15537 of 2005 since in both the writ petitions the workman is the same. However, for dictating order, the facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No.15517 of 2005.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 27.11.2003 (Annexure P/4) and order dated 16.5.2005 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.).
3. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that application was filed by respondent no.1 claiming gratuity under the Act Kumar Pardeep 2014.05.21 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.15517 of 2005 -2- and the authority directed that a sum of ` 30301/- be paid along with interest from the date of retirement i.e. 31.3.1999. The petitioner-Board filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act which was dismissed vide order dated 6.5.2005 and entitlement of respondent- workman to receive ` 30301/- along with interest was upheld and the said order is subject matter of challenge in Civil Writ Petition No.15537 of 2005. Thereafter, the cross appeal of the workman was allowed vide order dated 16.5.2005 and he was held entitled for additional sum of ` 12,721/- as modified gratuity amount. Resultantly both the writ petitions were filed by the Board challenging both the orders of the Appellate Authority i.e. orders dated 6.5.2005 and 16.5.2005.
4. The issue regarding entitlement of the payment of gratuity to the employees of the Board under the Act has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Balwant Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2008(3) RSJ391 The Division Bench held that employees of the Board were not entitled to the gratuity under the Act. However, the Division Bench protected the payments already made to the Board employees and also further directed that if any amount was deposited by the Board, it was to be refunded to the Board. The relevant paragraphs No.21 and 22 read as under:-
“21. The State Government has taken into account that the Act may not be prejudicial to the Board employees and on that count, it has been clearly laid down in Annexure P-5 that the payment already made to the employees shall not be recovered. So, due protection has been given to the Board employees who have already received the amount.
22. The Controlling Authority under the Act of 1972 has Kumar Pardeep 2014.05.21 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.15517 of 2005 -3- ordered the payment of gratuity. In some cases, the said amounts have been deposited with the Controlling Authority but have not been paid to the Board Employees due to pendency of present writ petitions. Since we have categorically held that the notification dated 8.1.2004, is legal, valid and in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1972, as such the amount, if any deposited by the Board shall be refunded to the Board.”. 5. Counsel for respondent no.1-workman has submitted that amount has since been disbursed and places reliance upon disbursal order dated 27.10.2005.
7. Be that as it may, both the present writ petitions are disposed of in view of observations made in Balwant Singh's case (supra) and it is directed that amount, if any, deposited with the Controlling Authority if it has not been disbursed to the employee, the same shall be refunded to the Board. If disbursal had already been made then in view of the protection granted by the Division Bench, the Board shall not be entitled to make any recovery.
8. Since the order of the Division Bench is under challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court, needless to say both the parties shall be bound by the final decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the said issue. 12.05.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Pka JUDGE Kumar Pardeep 2014.05.21 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh