Mohamed Amin Khan Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPS No. 1221 of 2021

Mohamed Amin Khan S/o Mohamed Yashin Aged About 62 Years Occupation Retired Overman In Secl, Resident Of Churcha Colliery District Korea Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Seepat Road, Sarkanda Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶8

2.General Manager Secl Office Of The General Manager Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh

¶9

3.Sub Area Manager Secl, Churcha Colliery, District Korea Chhattisgarh

¶10

4.Director Personal Secl Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶11

WPS No. 6170 of 2022

¶12

1.Gopal Yadav S/o Shri Gajadhar Yadav Aged About 62 Years Occupation Retired Mining Sardar In S E C L, R/o Churcha Colliery, Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

2.Prem Shankar Singh S/o Rambriksha Singh Aged About 62 Years Occupation Retired Foreman In Secl Churcha (Ro) Mines, R/o Village Shivpur, Churcha Colliery, Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶14

3.Om Prakash Pandey S/o Late Sukhpal Pandey Aged About 64 Years Occupation Retired Office Superintendent In Secl, Churcha Colliery, R/o Odgi Naka, Behind Petrol Pump, Sanjay Nagar, No. 2 Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

1.South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Seepat Road, Sarkanda Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

2.Genegal Manager Secl Office Of The General Manager Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶19

3.Sub Area Manager S E C L, Churcha Colliery, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶20

4.Director Personnel S E C L, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶21

------------------------------------- For petitioners	-------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Pritam Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent/SECL in WPS No 1221 of 2021	: Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent/SECL in WPS No 6170 of 2022.	: Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate

¶22

2

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas.

¶24

Order on Board

¶25

(11-6-2024)

¶26

Since an identical issue and common facts are involved in both the writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶27

The petitioners have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 22-8-20219 issued by the Deputy Manager (Personnel ) wherein it has been stated that the employees who stood retired after 28-3-2018 are entitled to get the increased amount of gratuity Rs.20,00,000/- whereas the employees who retired from services before 28-3-2018 are not entitled to get the increased amount of gratuity.

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are working as Overman, Fireman, Mining Sardar, Officer Superintendent with the respondent. The petitioners stood retired on 28.07.2017, 28.02.2018, 31.10.2017, 31.12.2017 respectively, they have been paid gratuity amount by the respondent to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs which according to the petitioners in a lower side, therefore, the petitioners have preferred representation for grant of higher amount of gratuity, which have been rejected by the respondent on 22-8-2019 (Annexure P/1).

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per office memorandum dated 10-7-20128 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises Department of Public Enterprises, it is quite vivid that as per para 2(a) of the memorandum, the payment of gratuity under DPE guidelines dated 3-8-2017 is subject to affordability of the CPSEs concerned effective for the period from 1-12017 till 28-3-2018 in respect of executives and non unionised supervisors of CPSEs on IDA payment pattern where pay has been revised with effect from 1-1-2017. He would further submit that so many employees have been retired from 20-8-2018 and increased gratuity

¶30

3

¶31

amount was paid to them a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. Thus, the respondent authority violated the Rules 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and would pray for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay increased gratuity to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitions are non-executive, therefore, they are workmen and they have alternative remedy of raising dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner Central, for claiming difference of gratuity, as such the writ petitions are not maintainable. They would further submit that whether the petitioners are executive or non-executive, it is also disputed fact, therefore, it cannot be ascertained by this court, as such they would submit that the writ petitions are not maintainable before this court.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners opposing the aforesaid submissions would submit that the since the facts are not in dispute, only interpretation of circular has to be carried out which can be very well done by this court, as such the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have alternative remedy is not stainable and same deserves to be rejected.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶35

Considering the submissions made by the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are workmen and whether they are executive or nonexecutive cannot be ascertained by this court as it requires evidence and also considering the fact that payment of gratuity Act, 1972, is complete code which clearly provides procedure for grant of gratuity and the manner of payment of gratuity. The payment of gratuity act provides remedy of raising dispute before the Controlling Authority and thereafter, the appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, as such, the writ petitions are not maintainable at this juncture. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to make an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act raising dispute about the enhanced gratuity. If the petitioners move an application before the Assistant Labour

¶36

4

¶37

Commissioner (Central) Bilaspur who is Controlling authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, neither the controlling authority nor the appellate authority nor the respondents will raise plea of limitation and Controlling authority will decide the case of the petitioners on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made by this court, preferably within a period of six months from the date of submission of the application.

¶38

With the aforesaid observation and direction, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶39

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

Sd/( Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE

¶41

Raju

Mohamed Amin Khan v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Amin Khan v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.

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

Jasbir Singh Gumber Vs Rajesh Arora

Dr. Pawan Anandrao Wankhade Vs Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Medical College

Ashwani Kumar Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manohar Lal Nag Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Upadhayay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Shelkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh