2007 (3) TMI 797 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation for filing application for gratuity.
2. Jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority.
3. Withholding of gratuity due to non-vacation of employer's premises.
4. Remittance of the matter back to the Controlling Authority.

Summary:

1. Limitation for filing application for gratuity:
The petitioner retired on 31st May 2000 and applied for gratuity on the same day, but the claim was not settled. He later moved an application dated 12th July 2005 to the Controlling Authority u/s 4 and 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, along with an application for condonation of delay. The Controlling Authority directed the respondent to pay the gratuity with interest. However, the Appellate Authority reversed this order, holding the application was barred by limitation. The High Court noted that the Controlling Authority failed to consider the application for condonation of delay, which was a lapse.

2. Jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority:
The Appellate Authority held that without condoning the delay, the Controlling Authority had no jurisdiction to decide the application for gratuity. The High Court agreed, stating that the Controlling Authority should have first addressed the delay condonation before proceeding on merits.

3. Withholding of gratuity due to non-vacation of employer's premises:
The respondent argued that the gratuity was withheld because the petitioner refused to vacate the bank's residential accommodation. The petitioner contended that gratuity cannot be denied on this ground, citing precedents. The respondent cited a recent judgment allowing employers to withhold gratuity for unauthorized occupation of quarters. The High Court noted that the Controlling Authority should consider this factor when deciding the application.

4. Remittance of the matter back to the Controlling Authority:
The High Court set aside the Appellate Authority's order and remitted the matter back to the Controlling Authority to consider the application for condonation of delay. The Controlling Authority was directed to decide the application on its merits, following principles of natural justice. The amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- deposited by the respondent was directed to be held in fixed deposits by the Controlling Authority, subject to the result of the application. The petitioner was allowed to withdraw the amount if he vacated the bank premises.

Order:
The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.