Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

labour and industrial - payment of gratuity - section 2(a) of u. p. industrial dispute act, 1947 and sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3a) of payment of gratuity act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by state authority - on representation by employee central government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to section 7(3) and (3a) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and central government has to determine gratuity as payable to corporation belonging to central government. -

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

orderd.p. singh, j.1. heard sri p.k. mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri v.n. pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.2. the respondent no. 3 was an employee of m/s. bharat pumps and compressors ltd., naini, allahabad. the services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th may, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the managing director of the petitioner-corporation was also dismissed on 4th april, 1987. it is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the corporation gave re-employment to the respondent no. 3 vide its order dated 6th april, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent no. 3, and he joined on the said past. it is stated that the respondent no. 3 filed a writ petition no. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this court......

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

D.P. Singh, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(a) 'appropriate Government' means :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii).....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(a) 'appropriate Government' means :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) in relation to an establishment :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(b) having branches in more than one State,

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) in any other case, the State Government ;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '455954',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
			'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
			'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">D.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii).....</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '455954',
		(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central and ors - Citation 455954 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '455954',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51615/payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-complete-act">Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> - Sections 2, 7(3) and 7(3A); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2',
		'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 48341 of 2000',
		'appellant' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - payment of gratuity - Section 2(a) of U. P.  Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and Sections 2(a)(i), 7(3) and 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - gratuity of respondent determined by State Authority - on representation by employee Central Government determined gratuity along with interest - held, according to Section 7(3) and (3A) interest on gratuity remain unpaid after one month was payable and Central Government has to determine gratuity as payable to Corporation belonging to Central Government.<br> - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'P.K. Mukherji, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.N. Pandey and ;S.N. Misra, Advs. and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-02-13',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'D.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.</p><p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.</p><p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.</p><p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.</p><p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :</p><p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and </p><p> (ii).....</p><p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :</p><p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :</p><p> (i) in relation to an establishment :</p><p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,</p><p> (b) having branches in more than one State,</p><p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,</p><p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.</p><p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; </p><p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.</p><p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :</p><p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.</p><p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.</p><p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' </p><p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.</p><p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.</p><p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(2)AWC1321; [2003(97)FLR221]; (2003)IILLJ732All; (2003)2UPLBEC1147',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '455954',
	(int) 1 => 'bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/455954/bharat-pumps-compressors-ltd-vs-regional-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>D.P. Singh, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was notthe competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. 'Appropriate Government' has been defined under the <a>Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972</a> and also under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For ready reference, Section 2(a) of Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 2(a) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act are quoted hereinbelow :',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. Definition.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:',
	(int) 6 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) In relation to anyindustrial disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under theauthority of the CentralGovernment or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlledindustry as may be specified in this behalf by theCentral Government or inrelation to an Industrialdispute concerning (a- Dock Labour Board established under Section 5A ofthe Dock Workers(Regulation ofEmployment) Act, 1948 (9of 1948) or the IndustrialFinance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of trustees constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Board of Trustees constituted under Section 5A and Section 5B respectively of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). or the 'Indian Airlines' and 'Air India' Corporations established under Section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Commission established under Section 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of Indiaestablished under Section 3, or a Board ofManagement establishedfor two or more contiguousStates under Section 16 ofthe Food Corporation Act,1964 (37 of 1964), or theInternational AirportsAuthority of India constituted under Section 3 ofthe International AirportsAuthority of India Act,1971 (43 of 1971), or aRegional Rural Bank established under Section 3of the Regional RuralBanks Act, 1976 (21 of1976), or the ExportCredit and GuaranteeCorporation Ltd. or theIndustrial ReconstructionBank of India, or (theBanking ServiceCommission establishedunder Section 3 of theBanking ServiceCommission Act, 1975, or)(a banking or insurancecompany, a mine, and oilfield (a CantonmentBoard) or a major port, theCentral Government and ',
	(int) 8 => '<p> (ii).....',
	(int) 9 => '<p> (aa) ..... 2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires :',
	(int) 10 => '<p> (a) 'appropriate Government' means :',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (i) in relation to an establishment :',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (a) belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government,',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (b) having branches in more than one State,',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, theCentral Government,',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (d) of a major port, mine, oil-field or railway company, the Central Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (ii) in any other case, the State Government ; ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>5. A perusal of the definitions given under both the Acts are substantially different. This appropriate Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the present facts of the case would be the Central Government. Even according to the petitioner, the Corporation belongs to the Central Government. This very objection, rightly was raised before the State Authority. In my opinion, the State Authority could not determine the gratuity payable to the workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act. This contention of the petitioner fails.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not entitled to payment of interest has no force. A perusal of Section 7(3) and (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act would show that if the employer does not make arrangement to pay the gratuity within thirty days, when it becomes payable, the workman becomes entitled for interest. For ready reference Section 7(3) and Section 3A are quoted below :',
	(int) 19 => '<p>'7. Determination of the amount of gratuity,--(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed for payment of such gratuity.',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer withinthe period specified in Subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, nor exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify : Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>7. There is no averment that the employer had arranged for making the payment to the workman within the period prescribed. Thus, in my view, the Central Authority was within its jurisdiction to grant interest on the gratuity payable to the workman.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payments under the impugned order has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, the interest should only be charged till the date on which the payment has been made. In my view, the submission is reasonable. The respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any interest upon the gratuity payable to him from the date the petitioners had made deposits.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>9. In view of the discussions above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost.<p>',
	(int) 25 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 26
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109