Dismissed

The General Manager Region , Food Corporation Of India v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC4 May 2017CWJC/8447/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ application challenging an appeal dismissal. The court held that under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, depositing the gratuity amount determined by the Controlling Authority is a mandatory pre-condition for filing an appeal, regardless of disputes.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed as the Appellate Authority was correct in rejecting the appeal due to failure to deposit the gratuity amount.

The General Manager Region , Food Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8447 of 2016

¶3

=========================================================== The General Manager ( Region ), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Arunachal Building, Exhibition Road, Patna- 800001.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi.

¶7

The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna-cum-Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Maurya Lok Complex, 2nd Floor, Patna- 800001

¶8

The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)-cum-Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Maurya Lok Complex, 2nd Floor, Patna- 800001.

¶9

Shri Jai Prakash Singh, ex-Manager (Depot), son of Late Jugal Singh, resident of Dharamnarayan Road, Madhopur, Basdeopur, Munger, State- Bihar, Pin811202.

¶10

.... .... Respondents

¶11

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P. K. Verma, Sr. Advocate Dr.Mankeshwar Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D SANJAY (ADDL. SOC. GEN.) For the respondent : Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary, CGC

¶12

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-05-2017

¶13

Heard Mr. P. K. Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India and perused the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority.

¶14

This writ application has been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short „the Act‟) dated 26/27.05.2015 passed in

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.8447 of 2016 dt.04-05-2017

¶16

2/5

¶17

Appeal Case No. 36/13/2015/Appeal/RLC whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 28/30.01.2014 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)-cum-Controlling Authority in File No. 48/22/2013/ALC-II by which the petitioner has been directed for making payment of gratuity with interest to respondent no. 4, has been dismissed.

¶18

The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the amount of gratuity with interest as directed by the Controlling Authority.

¶19

In order to examine the legality of the order, it would be pertinent to refer to the second proviso to sub-section (7) of the Act inserted by Act 25 of 1984 with effect from 01.07.1984, which reads as under :-

¶20

“Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces the 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 be deposited under sub-section (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount.”

¶21

On query made by this Court, learned Senior

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.8447 of 2016 dt.04-05-2017

¶23

3/5

¶24

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner conceded that the amount of gratuity with interest, as required to be deposited under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act has neither been deposited before the Controlling Authority nor the said amount has been deposited with the Appellate Authority. He contended that the said amount was not an admitted amount and thus in view of subsection (4)(a) of Section 7 of the Act, the petitioner was not required to deposit the amount.

¶25

The argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner for not depositing the amount either with the Controlling Authority or the Appellate Authority cannot be accepted.

¶26

As noted above, the second proviso to subsection (7) of Section 7 of the Act clearly mandates that no appeal by an employee shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the 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 be deposited under sub-section (4) or deposits with the Appellate Authority such amount. Simply because the petitioner disputes the amount, the same cannot be a ground for not depositing the same.

¶27

It would be evident from perusal of sub-section

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.8447 of 2016 dt.04-05-2017

¶29

4/5

¶30

(7) of Section 7 that the right of appeal, though is a vested statutory right is restricted by the first proviso. A person aggrieved by an order of determination of the amount of gratuity passed by the Controlling Authority can prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority within the statutory period of sixty days. The first proviso gives discretion on the Appellate Authority to extend the period of limitation by additional 60 days.

¶31

The second proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 7 provides a pre-condition of deposit of amount ordered by the Controlling Authority to entertain an appeal. The Appellate Authority cannot admit an appeal unless at the time of preferring appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the Controlling Authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with the Authority an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act. Thus, the second proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act clearly prohibits admission of the appeal in absence of the due compliance of the necessary requirements mentioned therein.

¶32

It is true that clause (a) of sub-section 4 of Section 7 provides that if there is any dispute to the amount of gratuity payable the employer is required to deposit with the Controlling Authority such amount as he admits to be payable by

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.8447 of 2016 dt.04-05-2017

¶34

5/5

¶35

him as gratuity. However from a bare reading of clauses (b) (c) (d) and (e), it would be evident that under any circumstance the deposit of the gratuity amount, whether disputed or undisputed cannot be postponed for any reason. From the language of sub-section (7) of Section 7, it becomes absolutely clear that the appellant is required to deposit the amount of gratuity as directed by the Controlling Authority while filing an appeal. In case of failure to deposit the amount within the statutory period prescribed under the Act, the Appellant cannot invoke the vested right to appeal, as the same is a pre-condition to entertain an appeal.

¶36

In that view of the matter, if the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal, no illegality can be found with the order impugned.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

¶38

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)

¶39

Kanchan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.05.2017
Transmission Date NA

The General Manager Region , Food Corporation Of India v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager Region , Food Corporation Of India v. The Union Of India and Ors.

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

The Secretary Navyug Vidyalaya and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Urmila Devi Sah @ Urmila Devi and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ranjeet Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Kausar and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Solar Alternatives And Associated Programmes Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ Raju Yadav @ Rajeev Ranjan Yadav and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.