* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No. 318 of 2010
Institute of Economic Growth ....Appellant
Through Mr.Pawan Kumar Aggarwal, Adv.
with Mr. Sushil Trivedi, Advocate.
VERSUS
Controlling Officer under Payment of
Gratuity Act & Anr. .....Respondents
Through Mr. Vivek Ojha & Ms. Aruna Tikku
for respondent No. 1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
% 03.02.2011 The appellant, Institute of Economic Growth, assails the order dated 16th March, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing their Writ Petition (C) No. 4560/1999. The aforesaid writ petition was directed against the order dated 26th February, 1999 passed by the Controlling Officer under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act, for LPA 318/10 Page 1 of 4 short), whereby the appellant was required to pay Rs.32,290/- towards balance gratuity to Mr. Chaman Singh, respondent No. 2 herein. The appellant was also directed to pay interest @ 10% per annum, subject to maximum amount of gratuity.
2. We agree with the counsel for the appellant that the definition clause - Section 2(5) of the Shop and Establishment Act, 1954 is not incorporated and cannot be the basis for defining the term 'establishment' used in Section 1(3)(b) of the Act but we are not inclined to interfere with the final direction passed by the Competent Authority under the Act or by the learned Single Judge.
3. The respondent NO. 2 retired in 1994 after rendering 38 years of service with the appellant institute. He had joined the institute in 1963 and at the time of retirement, he was paid Rs.67,710/- towards gratuity. His claim was that he was entitled to gratuity of Rs.1 lac i.e. the amount stated in the Act. The legal issue raised is of academic interest, in view of notification dated 3rd April, 1997 under Section 1(3)(c) of the Act by which educational institutions in which 10 or more persons were or are employed are covered by the Act. LPA 318/10 Page 2 of 4
4. The relevant rules of the appellant placed on record clearly state that the appellant institute shall for the purpose of gratuity mutatis mutandis follow the rules of the University of Delhi. In the appeal, the appellant institute has admitted that maximum amount payable towards gratuity at the relevant time was Rs.1 lac, but it has tried to justify payment of Rs.67,710/- only. However, no justification or explanation was given before the learned Single Judge. The said justification has been raised for the first time in the grounds of appeal. The plea raised before the Single Judge was different. It was submitted that the Rules of the University were not applicable in entirety. Keeping in view the entire history of the litigation which began in 1997, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. The respondent No. 2 has submitted calculations of total amount due and payable along with the rate of interest @ 10% p.a. which comes to Rs.87,183/-. A sum of Rs.64,580/- has been deposited by the appellant and has been directed to be paid to the respondent No. 2 along with accrued interest on encashment of FDR. The balance sum of LPA 318/10 Page 3 of 4 Rs.22,503/- will be paid by the appellant to the respondent No. 2 by a cross cheque within a period of 4 weeks from the date on which copy of this order is received by them. Rs.10,000/- awarded by the learned Single Judge will also be paid along with the said cheque. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No further costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE February 3, 2011 KKB LPA 318/10 Page 4 of 4