Madar Union Sanatorium and Hospital Vs. M.B. SaThe and ors. - Court Judgment

D.L. Mehta, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, Labour Commissioner, Rajasthan Jaipur, The Appellate Authority confirmed the order dated 27th June, 1981 passed by the Controlling Authority, Ajmer, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is an admitted position that the non-petitioner, Madhukar Balwant Sathe was the employee and he has worked for a period of more than 29 years and only a meagre amount of Rs. 6992 has been directed to be paid to the non-petitioner by way of gratuity and further direction has been given that the interest should be paid at the rate of Rs. 9% as provided in Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Mr. Hemandass has challenged the vires of Sections 7 and 4 of the Act and submitted that it is against the interest of minority institutions and specially run for philanthropic purposes. He further submits that the word 'determine the amount of gratuity' does not include the determination of the dispute whether any gratuity is liable to be paid or not. The third objection which Mr. Hemandass has raised is that there is no specific provision under the law for the payment of gratuity. As far as the objection relating to the interpretation of the word 'determination' is concerned, I am of the view that the determination includes the determination of the liability and while determining the liability the authority can say that there exists no liability on one ground or the other. The word 'determination' cannot be given a narrow interpretation. Wider interpretation has to be given and if the authority finds that it is having no jurisdiction to decide it can determine that there is no liability which can be determined by the Authority concerned. As far as the vires of Sections 4 and 7 is concerned I do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Without entering into controversy whether there is any provision for the payment of interest or not in the Act, Rules and notification made thereunder, I would like to make it clear that the authority while dealing with the beneficial legislation is duty-bound to pay by way of compensation the interest to the claimant. Recently, the Supreme Court while upholding the decision of this Court under Section 125 has also held that whenever there is no prohibition then the Court has inherent powers to compensate the deserving persons for the loss which has been caused to them. There is no provision which prohibits the payment of interest by way of compensation and in number of cases this court has already granted interest by way of compensation under the inherent powers also. It has also been upheld by the Supreme Court. The payment of interest is not by way of interest but it is by way of compensation for the delayed payment of the gratuity to a person who has worked for about 29 years or so. It does not defect the employer to say that he is not liable to pay interest or gratuity when he admits that the person has worked for 29 years sincerely and in a bona fide way. The Supreme Court has also held that the medical institutions can be treated also as an industry and I do not think that the industry will not fall within the definition of the establishment and this is an establishment run by the institution mainly on the grant-in-aid basis. It is an establishment and the person who has served the institution for a period of 29 years has a right to demand grant of gratuity. A person who is thrown out from the employment needs the sympathy of the society and the employer and needs sympathy of the legislature also. A person generally gets the employment after attaining the majority age and after 29 years of the valuable part of his life which he has devoted for the development and the functioning of the institution it cannot be said that after reaching a particular age he will have the same energy during his old age. In fact a person is more energetic during his young age than the old age and a person who is thrown out in the old age for one reason or the other is entitled for a better treatment than that of gratuity alone, and if the law does not provide it is for the society to make the legislators think of it.

3. As far as the question of limitation is concerned that has been discussed by the controlling authority and there was no necessity of further discussion by the appellate authority specially when the matter has been dealt with in detail. It has come on record on 4th April, 1979 that intimation was given and on 26th April the claim has been filed. Apart from that a beneficial legislation does not prohibit the Court in condoning the delay even though there may not be a specific provision. A person who is not technical and who are not legal minded are generally entitled for the benefit of condonation of delay specially under the beneficial legislation enacted for the welfare of the people.

4. I do not find any force in this writ petition and the same is rejected accordingly.