Partly allowed

C/M Koch Sahkari Kray Vikray Samiti Limited and Another v. Controlling Authority and Another

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2021WRIC/9909/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ court set aside a non-speaking order dismissing the Controlling Authority's resistance to a gratuity claim. The petition was partly allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Authority to decide afresh after affording specific opportunities to raise objections on maintainability and liability.

What did the court decide?

The non-speaking order dated 12.02.2021 is set aside; the matter is remanded to the Controlling Authority to decide afresh after allowing the petitioner to raise specific objections.

C/M Koch Sahkari Kray Vikray Samiti… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9909 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Koch Sahkari Kray Vikray Samiti Limited And Another Respondent :- Controlling Authority And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sujeet Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 12.02.2021 whereby the petitioner has been directed to release the amount of gratuity in favour of respondent no. 2.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not applicable on the petitioner, Co-operative Society as there are only three employees in the Society. He further submitted that an objection was filed to the application of respondent no. 2 by the Society on 03.12.2020 which has not been considered while passing the order impugned dated 12.02.2021.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petition submitted that it is only a notice and no order on merit has been passed for the payment of gratuity.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it transpires that respondent no. 1 after considering the application of respondent no. 2 as well as the objection of petitioner-Society had proceeded to hold that the Society is liable to pay Rs.2,68,065/- towards gratuity to respondent no. 2. From the order, it transpires that it has been passed without discussing as to how the gratuity is payable to respondent no. 2. As far as argument of learned counsel for petitioner that the gratuity is not payable to respondent no. 2 was never raised before the authority from the perusal of the objection so filed on 03.12.2020.

¶10

As the order impugned is non-speaking, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent no. 1 to decide it afresh giving opportunity to petitioner to raise specific objection as regards the maintainability of the proceedings before respondent no. 1.

¶11

It is further provided that in case petitioner files a fresh objection within three weeks from today along with copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court, respondent no. 1 after affording the opportunity to respondent no.2 shall take decision in regard to the payment of gratuity within next two months.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stand partly allowed.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.8.2021 V.S.Singh

C/M Koch Sahkari Kray Vikray Samiti Limited and Another v. Controlling Authority and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Koch Sahkari Kray Vikray Samiti Limited and Another v. Controlling Authority and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamruddin Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Radha Raman Varshney Vs State of U.P. and 17 Others

Raj Kumari Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vibhav Nath and 7 Others Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Tara Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd.Yusuf Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others