AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. P.K. Verma, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Anshuman Singh,
learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India and
perused the impugned order passed by the appellate authority.
This writ application has been filed against the
order of the Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 (for short ''the Act'') dated 21/22.05.2015 passed in Appeal
Case No.36/7/2015 Appeal/RLC whereby the appeal of the
petitioner filed against the order dated 3/7th January, 2014 passed by
the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Controlling Authority in
file No.48/ 1(12) / 2013/ALC-I by which the petitioner has been
directed for making payment of gratuity with interest to the
respondent No.4 has been dismissed.
The Appellate Authority has dismissed the
appeal filed by the petitioner under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of
the Act on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the
amount of gratuity with interest as directed by the Controlling
Authority.
Mr. P.K. Verma, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the amount of
gratuity with interest as directed by the Controlling Authority was
not an admitted amount and thus in view of sub-section (4)(a) of
Section 7 of the Act, the petitioner was not required to deposit the
amount.
The argument advanced by the learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner for not depositing the amount either
with the Controlling Authority or the Appellate Authority cannot be
accepted.
The second proviso to sub-section (7) of Section
7 of the Act clearly mandates that no appeal by an employee shall
be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant
either produces a certificate of the Controlling Authority to the
effect that the appellant deposited with him an amount equal to the
amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub-section (4) or
deposits with the Appellate Authority such amount. Simply because
the petitioner disputes the amount, the same cannot be a ground for
not depositing the same.
It would be evident from second proviso to sub-
section (7) of the Section 7 of the Act that the deposit of amount
ordered by the Controlling Authority is a pre-condition to entertain
an appeal. The Appellate Authority cannot admit an appeal unless at
the time of preferring an appeal, the appellant either produces a
certificate of the Controlling Authority to the effect that the
appellant has deposited with the authority an amount like to the
amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub-section (4) of
section 7 of the Act. Thus, the second proviso to sub-section (7) of
Section 7 of the Act clearly prohibits admission of the appeal in
absence of the due compliance of the necessary requirements
mentioned therein.
True, it is that clause (a) of sub-section (4) of
Section 7 provides that if there is any dispute to the amount of
gratuity payable, the employer is required to deposit with the Controlling Authority such amount as he admits to be payable by
him as gratuity. However from a bare reading of clauses (b) (c) (d)
and (e), it would be evident that under any circumstance the deposit
of the gratuity amount, whether disputed or undisputed cannot be
postponed for any reason. From the language of sub-section (7) of
Section 7, it is absolutely clear that the appellant is required to
deposit the amount of gratuity as directed by the Controlling
Authority while filing an appeal. In case of failure to deposit the
amount within the statutory period prescribed under the Act, the
Appellant cannot invoke the vested right to appeal, as the same is a
pre-condition to entertain an appeal.
Thus, if the Appellate Authority has dismissed the
appeal on the ground of non-deposit of the amount of gratuity
required to be deposited under the Act, no illegality can be found
with the order impugned.
The writ application, being devoid of any merit,
is dismissed.