9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the company was justified in its action of offering Rs. 75,295.90p to the first respondent after deducting a sum of Rs. 1,23,889.50p from the total amount of gratuity of Rs. 1,99,185/- payable to the first respondent? 2. Whether the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act acted within their jurisdiction in allowing the claim of the first respondent? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Justification of Deduction from Gratuity The company contended that it was entitled to deduct amounts for penal rent, electricity charges, and other dues from the gratuity payable to the first respondent, as per its Gratuity Rules. The company argued that these rules, which were not questioned by the first respondent, allowed such deductions. The company distinguished between forfeiture and deduction, arguing that while Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act permits forfeiture under certain conditions, it had only made deductions for amounts due, not a forfeiture. However, the court noted that the Gratuity Rules of the company, being non-statutory, could not override the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The court emphasized that gratuity is a statutory right under the Act and cannot be impaired by non-statutory rules. The court referred to Section 14 of the Act, which has an overriding effect, making any inconsistent non-statutory rules inapplicable. The court also referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., which held that non-statutory rules could not impair the statutory right to gratuity. The court concluded that the company's action of deducting amounts from the gratuity was not justified as it was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Authorities under the Act The court examined whether the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act acted within their jurisdiction in allowing the claim of the first respondent. The authorities had directed the company to make full payment of gratuity without any deductions. The court upheld the decisions of the authorities, stating that they had correctly interpreted the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The court emphasized that the Act provides a complete code for the payment of gratuity, including the conditions under which it can be forfeited or withheld. The court found that the authorities had acted within their jurisdiction and had not erred in law. The court also noted that the first respondent did not vacate the official accommodation because the company delayed releasing retirement benefits, which could have justified his actions. However, this issue was not for the court to decide. Conclusion The court concluded that the company's action of deducting amounts from the gratuity was not justified under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The authorities under the Act had acted within their jurisdiction in directing the company to make full payment of gratuity to the first respondent. The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the Controlling Authority to release the gratuity amount deposited with it to the first respondent within four weeks. There was no order as to costs.
|
