M/s DCM Ltd. Vs. P.O. Controlling Authority and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1180376
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-04-2015
Case NumberCWP No. 12515 of 2013
JudgeRajiv Narain Raina
AppellantM/s DCM Ltd.
RespondentP.O. Controlling Authority and Others
Excerpt:
payment of gratuity act, 1972 - section 10 - comparative citation: 2016 (1) sct 463,rajiv narain raina, j. (oral) 1. when this matter came up for hearing for the first time on 30th may, 2013 in urgent motion hearing, i passed the following order :- "present: mr. harvinder singh, advocate, for the petitioner. contends, inter alia, that the dispute raised under section 2(k) of the i.d. act, 1947, related to closure of the mills which had led to disengagement of the respondent workman on 16.03.1986. the workman on closure of the petitioner- mill is stated to have taken provident fund dues etc. the industrial dispute raised with respect to closure came to an end against the workman on 26.08.1997 when the s.l.p. filed by him was dismissed. the present case involves a claim for gratuity. the authority under the payment of gratuity act has not only entertained the application after considerably delay and laches which could be counted from either 16.03.1986 or from 26.08.1997 but has done so without giving reasons or findings on sufficient cause explaining delay in approaching the authority. the workman did not even care to file an application for condonation of delay much less explaining it in writing. notice of motion returnable on 12.08.2013. notice re.: stay. in the meantime, operation of the impugned orders (annexures p-1 to p-3) shall remain stayed till further orders." 2. this court is informed that the amount of gratuity is a trifling amount of rs. 15000/- and odd. there is no doubt that the application under section 10 of the payment of gratuity act, 1972 was filed after 23 years of the right to gratuity maturing. section 10 of the payment of gratuity act, 1972 prescribes 90 days for making claims of unpaid gratuity but that is not a final boundary. 3. on the persuasion of this court not to litigate for such a petty amount before the high court in its extraordinary jurisdiction and the grace shown by mr. harvinder singh, learned counsel appearing for the management, on instructions from his client that they would like to put an end to this matter in a peaceful manner. the respondent-workman is also agreed that if the amount of gratuity lying deposited before the appellate authority which was paid for entertaining the appeal, is ordered to be released in his favour he will relinquish his right to the awarded amount of interest. agitating the issue of interest in writ jurisdiction against the order of the appellate authority would compel the court to express an opinion on the maintainability of the writ petition when management did not agree to pay interest on a stale claim which they had every right to oppose and justifiably so. 4. however, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or on the maintainability of the writ petition and in order to do substantial justice in an unconventional way, both the parties have been persuaded that a further amount of rs. 5000/- would be also paid by the management directly to the workman as full and final settlement of all the claims arising out in this writ petition. 5. in view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to release the amount of gratuity lying before it which was deposited by the management for entertaining its appeal, to the respondent-workman and a further amount of rs. 5000/- would be paid by the management to the workman through a draft in the name of the workman as full and final settlement of all the claims arising out in this writ petition. let the amount be paid by the management to the respondent-workman through draft in the name of the workman within 30 days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the draft be handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent-workman. it is also made clear that this order would not be treated or cited as a precedent and has been passed only to put an end to the litigation. 6. the courtesy shown by mr. harvinder singh and the management he represents is appreciated. they had a case but bowed out of court gracefully on a mere suggestion placed for their consideration. the petition stands disposed of, as above.
Judgment:

Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (Oral)

1. When this matter came up for hearing for the first time on 30th May, 2013 in urgent motion hearing, I passed the following order :-

"Present: Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Contends, inter alia, that the dispute raised under Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947, related to closure of the mills which had led to disengagement of the respondent workman on 16.03.1986. The workman on closure of the petitioner- Mill is stated to have taken provident fund dues etc. The industrial dispute raised with respect to closure came to an end against the workman on 26.08.1997 when the S.L.P. Filed by him was dismissed.

The present case involves a claim for gratuity. The Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has not only entertained the application after considerably delay and laches which could be counted from either 16.03.1986 or from 26.08.1997 but has done so without giving reasons or findings on sufficient cause explaining delay in approaching the authority. The workman did not even care to file an application for condonation of delay much less explaining it in writing.

Notice of motion returnable on 12.08.2013.

Notice re.: stay.

In the meantime, operation of the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 to P-3) shall remain stayed till further orders."

2. This Court is informed that the amount of gratuity is a trifling amount of Rs. 15000/- and odd. There is no doubt that the application under Section 10 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was filed after 23 years of the right to gratuity maturing. Section 10 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 prescribes 90 days for making claims of unpaid gratuity but that is not a final boundary.

3. On the persuasion of this Court not to litigate for such a petty amount before the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction and the grace shown by Mr. Harvinder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Management, on instructions from his client that they would like to put an end to this matter in a peaceful manner. The respondent-workman is also agreed that if the amount of gratuity lying deposited before the Appellate Authority which was paid for entertaining the appeal, is ordered to be released in his favour he will relinquish his right to the awarded amount of interest. Agitating the issue of interest in writ jurisdiction against the order of the appellate authority would compel the Court to express an opinion on the maintainability of the writ petition when Management did not agree to pay interest on a stale claim which they had every right to oppose and justifiably so.

4. However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or on the maintainability of the writ petition and in order to do substantial justice in an unconventional way, both the parties have been persuaded that a further amount of Rs. 5000/- would be also paid by the Management directly to the workman as full and final settlement of all the claims arising out in this writ petition.

5. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to release the amount of gratuity lying before it which was deposited by the Management for entertaining its appeal, to the respondent-workman and a further amount of Rs. 5000/- would be paid by the Management to the workman through a draft in the name of the workman as full and final settlement of all the claims arising out in this writ petition. Let the amount be paid by the Management to the respondent-workman through draft in the name of the workman within 30 days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the draft be handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent-workman. It is also made clear that this order would not be treated or cited as a precedent and has been passed only to put an end to the litigation.

6. The courtesy shown by Mr. Harvinder Singh and the Management he represents is appreciated. They had a case but bowed out of court gracefully on a mere suggestion placed for their consideration.

The petition stands disposed of, as above.