9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 31st May, 2000 till the date of payment within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. The Facts: 4. The facts leading to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was in continuous service for about 36 years with respondent No. 1-UCO Bank in Mumbai. He retired from the service with effect from 31st May, 2000. On the same day, petitioner made application to respondent No. 1 requesting to make payment of gratuity. However, no claim of gratuity was settled. No amount of gratuity was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have contacted various bank authorities but he could not get the amount of gratuity in spite of repeated requests made in that behalf. 5. It appears that the petitioner filed Consumer Complaint No. 407/2002 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai which came to be rejected for want of jurisdiction. 6. The petitioner, ultimately, moved an application dated 12th July, 2005 to the Controlling Authority as required under Sections 4 and 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ( Act for short) read with Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 framed under the Act ( Rules fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. According to him, considering the cause shown, the Appellate Authority could not have held that the application made by the petitioner to claim amount of gratuity was barred by limitation. He, thus, submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and the order of the Controlling Authority is liable to be restored. 11. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1- Bank submits that no order was passed by the Controlling Authority condoning delay in moving application under Sections 4 and 7 of the Act. He further submits that the Controlling Authority had no jurisdiction to decide the application for gratuity unless the delay was condoned after hearing both parties. In his submission, in absence of any specific order condoning delay, the order of the Controlling Authority was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the Appellate Authority was perfectly justified in reversing the said order. 12. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 also brought to my notice that the petitioner is occupying residential accommodation owned and possessed by respondent No. 1- Bank. The Bank did not release amount of gratuity because the petitioner employee refused to vacate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) and distinguished the same. As such, in his submission, action of respondent No. 1- Bank is perfectly legal and valid. He, thus, submits that the Controlling Authority could not have directed payment of interest on the amount of gratuity. He, thus, submits that the order of the Controlling Authority being illegal cannot be restored by this Court under its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Event before this Court: 16. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1-Bank tendered Pay Order of ₹ 3,50,000/- drawn in favour of the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Mumbai for being paid to the petitioner, subject to his vacating the accommodation of the Bank occupied by him. 17. This Court after receiving the aforesaid amount tried to persuade the petitioner to vacate the premises leaving the question of interest open for being decided by this Court. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instruction of his client, who was present in the Court, expressed his inability to accept the suggestion made by the Court and also refused to vacate the premises of the Bank occupied by the petitioner unless amount determined by the Controllin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h procedural aspects of the matter. Rule 17 deals with the decision on the application. 21. Sub-section (7) of Section 7 also prescribes period of limitation of sixty days for filing appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority. It is provided therein that the delay, if any, beyond sixty days can be condoned by the authority on satisfaction of sufficient cause. Rule 18 provides for procedure with regard to filing of appeal as provided under Sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act. 22. Having taken survey of the provisions of the Act and Rules, it is clear that the period of limitation is provided for moving an application to the Controlling Authority, to claim the amount of gratuity. The rule governing the limitation appears not to have been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge when the case of Gurunath Vithal Tamse (supra) was heard and decided, as such ratio of the said judgment cannot be accepted as an authority to hold that no period of limitation is prescribed to move an application to the Controlling Authority under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 23. In the above backdrop, turning to the case on hand, after receipt of application under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
