Dismissed

Jammu Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Th Its Managing Director Muzaffar Sultan Jammu v. U T of J and K Th Deputy Labour Commissioner Jammu and Others

J&K HC2 Nov 2022WP(C)/1708/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held writ petitions filed by Jammu Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. under Article 226 to be not maintainable. The Court ruled that the pre-deposit condition under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is mandatory and appellate authorities lack power to grant exemptions. Petitions were dismissed, directing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions dismissed; liberty granted to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Jammu Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Th Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | J&K HC (2022)

¶1

Sr.No. 93

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

¶3

AT JAMMU

¶4

WP(C) 1708/2022,WP(C) 1691/2022 WP(C) 1692/2022,WP(C) 1694/2022 WP(C) 1695/2022,WP(C) 1696/2022 WP(C) 1697/2022,WP(C) 1698/2022 WP(C) 1699/2022,WP(C) 1700/2022 WP(C) 1701/2022,WP(C) 1702/2022 WP(C) 1703/2022,WP(C) 1704/2022 WP(C) 1705/2022,WP(C) 1706/2022 WP(C) 1707/2022,WP(C) 1709/2022 WP(C) 1710/2022,WP(C) 1711/2022 WP(C) 1716/2022,WP(C) 1718/2022

¶5

Jammu Central Cooperative Bank Ltd ….. Applicant/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Amit Khajuria, Advocate

¶7

¶8

UT of Jammu & Kashmir and others

¶9

.…. Respondent(s)

¶10

Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy.AG for R-1

¶11

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER 02.11.2022

¶13

1 . Impugned in these petitions are the orders passed by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act [“the Act of 1972] whereby the respondents/ex-employees of the Jammu Central Cooperative Bank have been held entitled to different amounts of gratuity along with interests.

¶14

2 . It is argued that the impugned orders were challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority in terms of sub-section 7 of Section 7 of the Act of 1972. The Appellate Authority declined to entertain the appeals as the same were not accompanied by a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the petitioner-appellant had deposited an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub-section 4 of Section 7 of the Act of 1972.

¶15

¶16

WP (C) no. 1708/2022

¶17

3 . The petitioner, as is argued by learned counsel, moved an application before the Appellate Authority seeking exemption of pre-deposit but the same was not entertained by the Appellate Authority. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file the instant writ petitions.

¶18

4 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the view that these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for throwing challenge to the order of the controlling authority under the Act of 1972 are not maintainable. The orders impugned passed by the controlling authority are appealable under section 7(7) of the Act of 1972. True it is that proviso second appended to sub-section 7 of Section 7 of the Act of 1972 provides that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless, at the time of preferring the appeal, appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to deposited under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act of 1972, or deposits with the Appellate Authority such amount.

¶19

5. From reading of Section 7 of the Act of 1972 in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that the pre-deposit provided under proviso second of subsection (7) of Section 7 is a condition precedent for entertaining or admitting an appeal of the employer. The provision is introduced in the Act for an avowed purpose. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a social welfare legislation aimed at providing a scheme for payment of gratuity to the employees engaged in factories, mines oilfields, plantations, ports, railways or other establishments and for matter connected thereto or incidental thereto.

¶20

¶21

WP (C) no. 1708/2022

¶22

6. Having regard to the object underlying the legislation i.e. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, I am of the considered view that the condition of predeposit for entertaining an appeal before the Appellate Authority is mandatory and there is no power with the Appellate Authority to grant exemption from making such pre-deposit. In appeal filed by the employer against the order under Section 7 of the Act of 1972 made in favour of employee(s), there is already an adjudication and determination of the amount of gratuity payable to the employee and with a view to safeguard the interest of the employee, it is necessary that the amount so determined by the controlling authority is either deposited with the controlling authority or the Appellate Authority. This would not only bring seriousness in the appeal filed by the employer but it will also ensure that in case the employer fails in its appeal, the employee gets the determined amount immediately without having been put to the hassle of filing execution petition.

¶23

7. For all these reasons and in view of the availability of the alternative statutory remedy available under the Act of 1972, I find these petitions not maintainable. Consequently, all these petitions are dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to work out its remedy before the appellate authority under the Act of 1972.

¶24

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge

¶25

Jammu

¶26

02.11.2022 Sahil Toga

Jammu Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Th Its Managing Director Muzaffar Sultan Jammu v. U T of J and K Th Deputy Labour Commissioner Jammu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jammu Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Th Its Managing Director Muzaffar Sultan Jammu v. U T of J and K Th Deputy Labour Commissioner Jammu and 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

Sanjeev Bhagat and Ors. Vs Manzoor Hussain Commissioner- Secy. P.W.D. Deptt. and Another.

Ajay Gandotra Vs Manzoor Hussain Secretary P.W.D.and Others.

Inhabitants of Village Lah Thr Muzahir Hussain and Anr. Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Thr Principal Secy Public Works Road and Buildings and Ors.

Sakshi Sharma and Another Vs Ut of J and K Th Principal Secretary Deptt of Home and Others

Manohar Lal and Ors. Vs State Th.Revenue Deptt.and Ors.

Quaa Vs U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Industry and Commerce Deptt and Others