Disposed¶11

M/S Mirc Electronics Ltd. v. Competent Authority Under Payment of Gratuity and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2023WRIC/8015/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Pankaj Bhatia, J., order dated 22.3.2023, WRIT - C No. 8015 of 2023): employer's writ challenge to gratuity award dated 02.12.2022 (Rs. 87,527/- plus 12% interest and Rs. 5000) disposed of on the ground of alternative appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act; Competent Authority directed to decide pending recall/review application dated 25.01.2023 within three weeks; recovery stayed subject to deposit of Rs.75,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: respondent no.1 directed to consider and decide the recall/review application dated 25.01.2023 in accordance with law preferably within three weeks of production of certified copy; recovery in terms of the award stayed till then, subject to petitioner depositing Rs.75,000/-. ¶11

M/S Mirc Electronics Ltd. Vs Competent Authority Under Payment of Gratuity and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's challenge to the impugned gratuity order dated 02.12.2022 can be pursued by way of writ petition notwithstanding the availability of an appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

As regards relief no.1, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's application seeking recall of the order dated 02.12.2022 is pending, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent no.1 to consider and decide the application dated 25.01.2023 in accordance with law with all expedition, preferably within three weeks from production of a certified copy of the order.

¶11

Key takeaways

Until decision on the recall application, recovery against the petitioner in terms of the award shall remain stayed, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.75,000/-.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ (C) petition by M/s Mirc Electronics Ltd. challenging the Competent Authority's order dated 02.12.2022 in PGA case no. 248 of 2020, which allowed a work woman's gratuity claim of Rs. 87,527/- with 12% interest and Rs. 5000. The Court held that as regards relief no.1 the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Noting that the petitioner's recall/review application dated 25.01.2023 against the ex-parte order was pending, the Court disposed of the petition, directing respondent no.1 to decide that application in accordance with law with all expedition, preferably within three weeks of production of a certified copy of the order, and stayed recovery under the award until then, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.75,000/-.

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8015 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Mirc Electronics Ltd. Respondent :- Competent Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamal Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶4

Present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶5

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the certiorari quashing the impugned order dated. 02/12/2022 passed by respondent number 1 in PGA case number 248 of 2020, allowing the claim application of the respondent work woman and directing the employers to pay the amount of alleged gratuity payable to the respondent number 2, amounting to Rs. 87,527/- along with 12% interest and Rs. 5000 (ANNEXURE NO 1). further a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to pass the order on the recall/review application dated 25/01/2023 filed by petitioner for recall/review of the impugned ex-parte order dated 02/12/2022.

¶6

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no 1 to pass the order on the recall/review application dated 25/01/2023 (Annexure no 2) filed by petitioner for recall/review of the impugned ex-parte order dated 02/12/2022

¶7

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no 1 not to pass any coercive orders in presence to the impugned orders dated 02/12/2022 during the pendency of the present writ petition.

¶8

....."

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner/company is not liable to pay the dues and has moved an application for recall of the order.

¶10

As regards relief no.1, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

¶11

However, as the application filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 02.12.2022 is pending, the present petition is disposed off directing respondent no.1 to consider and decide the application dated 25.01.2023 in accordance with law with all expedition, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶12

Till then, the recovery against the petitioner in terms of the award shall remain stayed subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.75,000/-.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.3.2023 nishant

¶14

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Mirc Electronics Ltd. v. Competent Authority Under Payment of Gratuity and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mirc Electronics Ltd. v. Competent Authority Under Payment of Gratuity and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Apaar Power Constructions Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Harbu Bai Vs Authorized Officer and Another

Kanchan Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Karan Rajput Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another