9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act regarding the payment of gratuity and withholding of quarter after service discontinuance. Objection raised by the respondent regarding the release of the deposited amount under the Payment of Gratuity Act due to being a sick industrial undertaking under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Analysis: 1. The Appellate Authority's decision was challenged as it went beyond its jurisdiction by considering the withholding of the quarter as a reason to reverse the payment of gratuity. The petitioner cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that pension and gratuity are valuable rights, and any delay in their disbursement should be viewed seriously. The Supreme Court also noted that withholding quarters after retirement is not a valid reason to withhold terminal benefits. Thus, the impugned order was set aside, and the original order awarding full gratuity with interest was upheld. 2. The respondent raised an objection regarding the release of the deposited amount under the Payment of Gratuity Act due to being a sick industrial undertaking under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The respondent argued that the pending reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction entitled them to protection under section 22(1) of the said Act. However, the Court noted that the prohibition under section 22(1) pertains to winding up, execution, distress, or recovery of money, which did not apply to the present case. The amount deposited under the Payment of Gratuity Act was not subject to recovery proceedings or execution of any decree, as it was voluntarily deposited by the respondent. 3. The Court highlighted that the respondent initiated the proceeding by appealing against the Controlling Authority's order to pay gratuity. The purpose of the Payment of Gratuity Act is to ensure timely disbursement of gratuity to employees. The respondent's attempt to delay payment by raising objections was deemed inappropriate. The Court clarified that neither the proceedings before the Appellate Authority nor the present petition under Article 226 amounted to recovery proceedings or execution of any decree. Therefore, the petition was allowed, the Appellate Authority's order was set aside, and the original order for gratuity payment was restored with a direction for disbursement in accordance with the law. 4. In conclusion, the Court emphasized the importance of timely payment of gratuity to employees and rejected the respondent's attempt to delay the process. The judgment upheld the rights of the petitioner as an ex-employee entitled to gratuity and directed the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act to disburse the amount as per the law. End of Analysis
|
