AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J. - An application filed by the 3rd respondent under section 7(4)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ''the Act'') having been allowed by the second respondent in exercise of the power under section 7(5) and the petitioner having been directed to pay the difference in gratuity amount of Rs. 74,092/- with interest at 10% p.a. from 1.11.2005 vide Order as at Annexure-A, the petitioner had filed under section 7(7), an appeal vide Annexure-B, before the first respondent. The said appeal having been dismissed by an Order dated 11.5.2015 vide Annexure-C, this writ petition was filed.
Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned advocate for the petitioner, having regard to the settled position of law, confined the consideration of the petition only with regard to the awarding of interest for the period preceding the filing of application by the 3rd respondent. She submitted that the 3rd respondent having retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.2005 and approached the second respondent with the application, after lapse of a years and the delay being attributable to the omissions on his part, the awarding of interest even for the delayed period is arbitrary. Learned Counsel submitted that a specific ground having been raised in the appeal filed vide Annexure - B and point No. 6 having been raised for consideration by the first respondent, the same has not been considered in accordance with law and hence, the order passed by the second respondent as at Annexure-A with regard to the upholding of awarding of interest by the first respondent, as per the Order passed vide Annexure-C, is bad and liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned orders to the extent of the direction issued for payment of interest for the period prior to the of the application before the second respondent is most arbitrary and interference is called for.
Sri L. Shekar learned advocate for the 3rd respondent on the other hand supported the awarding of interest by the second respondent and its upholding by the first respondent. Learned Counsel submitted that the gratuity amount" having not been deposited within the period specified under section 7(3) of the Act, the second respondent is justified in directing the payment of interest at 10% p.a. with effect from 1.11.2005.
Learned Government Advocate submitted that the employee having retired from service on 30.9.2005 and the gratuity amount payable having not been deposited within the period allowed under the Act, the order directing payment of interest for the period commencing from 1.11.2005 is justified and no interference with the Orders as at Annexures-A and C is called for.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the record of the case, short point for consideration is, whether the order as at Annexure-C, in so far as it upholds the order directing the payment of interest suffers from any infirmity?
The 3rd respondent having attained the age of superannuation has retired from service of petitioner on 30.9.2005. He has approached the second respondent during 2008 to direct the petitioner to pay the difference of gratuity amount. Point No. 2 raised by the second respondent shows that the application under section 7(4) of the Act was filed before the Controlling Authority after the deal of more than 4 years. The delay was condoned on 24.2.2010 by the Controlling Authority and the main application was decided on 21.3.2011 vide Order at Annexure-A.
In the appeal filed vide Annexure-B, at para 16, the petitioner has contended that in view of the Judgment dated 22.3.2011 passed in W.P.No.4818/2010, there being delay on the part of employee in filing the application, no interest should be awarded for the delayed period and as such the order directing payment of interest needs to be modified.
Taking note of the said ground and the contentions urged, point No. 6 was raised by the first respondent for consideration. Except referring to the case law, the said contention has not been dealt with by the first respondent, particularly with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. Point No. 6 has been answered in the affirmative without any discussion and thus, the Order as at Annexure-C, in so far as point No. 6 is concerned, is vitiated by arbitrariness. The order as at Annexure-A in so far as directing payment of interest is bald and unreasoned. In the said background the arbitrariness of the Appellate Authority has resulted in manifest injustice. The point No. 6 raised in the appeal being of significance should have been dealt with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case by the first respondent. The Order answering point No. 6 raised for consideration is virtually a non-speaking order. Thus, arbitrariness being manifest, there is need for interference.
In the result, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order as at Annexure-C passed by the first respondent rendered on point No. 6 is set aside. Matter is remitted to the first respondent for consideration and disposal i.e., in so far as point No. 6 raised for consideration is concerned.
Both parties are directed to appear before the first respondent on 22.10.2016 and receive orders. The case shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and before 31.12.2016.
No Costs.