Dismissed

H.Venkateswara Rao, Krishna Dist. v. G.M., Bharat Electronics Ltd., & 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Dec 2024WP/22435/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the refusal to accept gratuity deposits from the petitioner's previous employer, the High Court disposed of the matter by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act instead of making a definitive ruling on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Petitions disposed of without costs.

H.Venkateswara Rao, Krishna Dist. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

\ ■\ ■ A

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER ^

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 22435 OF 2011

¶8

Between:

¶9

H.Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Purnachandra Rao, Aged about 60 years, R/o. Door No. 16-356-7A, Machavaram, Machilipatnam Town, Krishna District ...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Bharat Electronic Limited, A Governemnt of India Under taking Represented by its General Manager, Machilipatnam Unit at R.T.road, Machilipatanam krishna District

¶12

The Senior Divisonal Manager, HR & S, Bharat Electronics Limited., Machilipatnam Unit at R.T.road., Machilipatnam, Krishna District

¶13

The General Manager, Bharat Electronics Limited., corporate Office at Outer ring road, Nagavara, Bangalore-45

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or directions mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of mandamus, declaring^theactionof the Respondents in nonpayment of the gratuity to the petitioner duly taking into the account of 12 years of service he rendered in Central Electronics limited and in restricting the gratuity only for the period he worked in Bharat Electronics Limited as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjustified, and unsustainable and direct the respondents to pay the gratuity to the petitioner duly computing the gratuity by taking into account the service rendered by him in Central Electronics limited and pass

¶16

LA. NO: 1 OF 201irWPMP. NO: 27379 OF 2011)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents to consider the representation, dated 03.01.2011 submitted by the petitioner and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to the respondents herein to^file the counter affidavit in the WP.No. 22435 of 2011 and pass

¶19

Counsel for the PetitloneriSRI. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: D RAVISHANKAR RAO The Court made the followingiORDER

¶20

APHC010075762011

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 0 7. r AT AMARAVATI [3457] 0 mLu (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶22

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 22435/2011

¶23

Between:

¶24

H.venkateswara Rao, Krishna Dist. ...PETITIONER

¶25

AND

¶26

G M Bharat Electronics Ltd 2 Others and ...RESPONDENT{S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

K V ADITYA CHOWDARY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.D RAVISHANKAR RAO

¶30

The Court made the following Order:

¶31

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not accepting the gratuity amount paid by the ex-employer^ofthe petitioner for the twelve years of service rendered by him.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner^that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent in the year 1991. Prior to joining the respondents, the petitioner^workedwith Central Electronics Limited for a period of twelve years. At the time of joining the respondent, the petitioner was paid a gratuity amount by his ex-employer. The gratuity amount received from the ex employer ought to have been deposited by the petitioner^intothe

¶33

¶34

HN, J W.P.No.22435 2011

¶35

gratuity trust of the respondent. However, it is submitted^thatthe respondents did not inform the petitioner about the requirement to deposit the amount of gratuity received by his ex-employer through the proper channel and also about submitting the form exercising the option of deposit of gratuity. As the petitioner^wasunawareof the requirement for submitting the option form, he^{cannotbefaulted} for not doing so. After being informed of the requirement^forthe option form, the petitioner made a representation on^24.04.1997, requesting the respondents to accept the deposit of gratuity amount. The petitioner also made further representations dated 15.02.2010, 17.09.2010, 03.01.2011 and 11.02.2011. The 2 nd respondent rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the company’s gratuity scheme was withdrawn with effect^from 24.05.1994.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation; however, on account of the inability of the petitioner to deposit the gratuity, the petitioner could not benefit from the service rendered with the respondents, which normally would be payable to an employee at the time of superannuation.

¶37

( V

¶38

HN, J 3 W.P.No.22435 2011

¶39

The learned Standing counsel for the respondents, appearing virtually online, submits that the company’s gratuity^schemewas withdrawn with effect from 24.05.1994 and at the time of attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner was paid the service benefits as per the prevailing rules of the company. It is also submitted that the petitioner ought to have verified with the concerned manager of the respondent company with regard^tothe receipt of gratuity and further deposit of gratuity. The petitioner ought to have soon after joining the respondent company,^should have approached the concerned manager and enquired with regard to the gratuity amount received and further deposit^{totheaccountof} the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner failed to respond at the appropriate time and only made representations on 24.04.1997, after six years of joining, by then the company gratuity scheme had been withdrawn. It is also submitted that as per Clause 7.1 of BEL Gratuity Employee Scheme, any dispute^with regard to the gratuity payable under the scheme, or any other dispute arising out of the issue relating to the gratuity,^mustbe appealed to the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for deciding the dispute.

¶40

HN, J 4 W.P.No.22435 2011

¶41

Recording the said observation in the counter-affidavit, ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is given liberty to approach the controlling authority under the Payments of Gratuity Act for the redressal of his grievance.

¶42

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed off.

¶43

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶45

stand closed. SDl- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /^ECT, OFFICER

¶46

¶47

Represented by its General Manager, Bharat Electronic Limited, A Governemnt of India Under taking , Machilipatnam Unit at R.T.road, Machilipatanam Krishna District

¶48

The Senior Divisonal Manager, HR & S, Bharat Electronics Limited., Machilipatnam Unit at R.T.road., Machilipatnam, Krishna District

¶49

The General Manager, Bharat Electronics Limited., corporate Office at Outer ring road, Nagavara, Bangalore-45

¶50

One CC to SRI. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

One CC to SRI. D RAVISHANKAR RAO Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

Three CD Copies

bhb

HIGH COURT

DATED:24/12/2024

ORDER

WP.No.22435 of 2011

o
= 2 5 FEB 2C25 m
Co
^ . Current Section

¶59

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

H.Venkateswara Rao, Krishna Dist. v. G.M., Bharat Electronics Ltd., & 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Venkateswara Rao, Krishna Dist. v. G.M., Bharat Electronics Ltd., & 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Lakshmi Priya Vinjamuri,W/o.a.Naresh Babu Vs The Vice Chancellor

M. Shafiullah Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C

K. Hemadri, Visakhapatnam Dist. & 20 Othrs Vs Chairman/M.D., the Epdc Ltd., & 5 Othrs

D. Varaha Narsimha Rao, Vsp. Vs M.D., Apsrtc, Hyd. & 2 Ors.

U.Narayana Rao Vs The Union of India., rep.by the Secretary to the Government

M.S.R.Krishna, Alamuru Mandal,E.G.District Vs the Govt of Ap., Endowments Dept., & 3 Others