M/S New Bhopal Textile Mills Vs. Praveen Kumar Channa - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1040207
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJan-24-2013
AppellantM/S New Bhopal Textile Mills
RespondentPraveen Kumar Channa
Excerpt:
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/­
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/­