Jogi Ramulu vs G.Ramachandra Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 9571 AP

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

                   Contempt Case No. 5884 OF 2022

ORDER:

1. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

2. This contempt has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of

the Judgment / order dated 22.04.2022 passed by this Court in

W.P. No. 22498 of 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being

aggrieved from non-payment of gratuity, the petitioner filed

P.G.F.A No. 1 of 2019 before the Assistant Commissioner of

Labour and Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act,

1972; in which, vide order dated 28.03.2017 the respondents

therein were directed to make the payment of gratuity of an

amount of Rs. 2,05,962/- with interest @ 12% per annum from

the date of the petitioner's retirement on 31.01.2015. The

respondents filed appeal, P.G.F.A.No. 1 of 2019, which was

dismissed on 01.06.2020 and challenging the same, the

respondents filed writ petition No. 22498 of 2021 which was also

dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 22.04.2022 but

inspite thereof payment has not been made to the petitioner.

4. The operative portion of the judgment dated 22.04.2022

reads as follows:-

"Thus, considered on point No.1 it is held that the Irrigation Department is an establishment under Section 1(3)(b) of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. On point No.2, it is held that an employee is entitled for gratuity under the provisions of the Act, 1972 even for the services rendered by him as N.M.R basis or on work charged establishment. Accordingly, on point No.3, it is held that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality and call for no interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction."

5. From the aforesaid, it is evident that this court dismissed

the writ petition and thereby the order dated 28.03.2017 passed

in P.G.No. 1 of 2015 stood affirmed. Learned counsel for the

petitioner could not point out as to what specific direction given

to the respondents under that judgment has been violated. He

only submits that the petitioner though NMR is entitled for

payment of gratuity. This court has held that the NMR is entitled

for payment of gratuity. Following the judgment cited and

consequently no illegality was found in the order challenged by

the petitioner of the writ petition. But only because of that, the

court does not find it to be a case of commission of contempt of

the said judgment. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the

present contempt petitioner may take recourse to the legal

provisions for execution of the order which stands affirmed by this

court, if so advised.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the controlling authority issued a notice dated 02.07.2018 to

the District Collector, Srikakulam to implement the order passed

by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 8 of the Payment of

Gratuity Act, to make of recovery of the amount. But, due to

pendency of the appeal and thereafter writ petition, the order was

not executed. He submits that now even after dismissal of the

writ petition, and inspite of the petitioner having given notice

dated 09.09.2022 to the District Collector, he is not proceeding

and the amount of gratuity has not been recovered from the writ

petitioner to be paid to the contempt petitioner.

7. In view of the aforesaid, in case of any grievance with

respect to the inaction of the District Collector in not proceeding

to recover or to execute, the court order dated 28.03.2017, it is

for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in appropriate

proceedings if so advised but for that the Contempt Petition is not

the remedy.

8. In the result, the contempt petition is rejected as no case for

initiating the contempt proceedings is made out.

9. However, rejection of the contempt petition would not mean

that the Competent Authority/District Collector, Srikakulam is

not to discharge his statutory duty under Section 8 of the

Payment of Gratuity Act to recover the amount pursuant to the

order dated 28.03.2017.

10. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

13.12.2022 Psr.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

( Rejected )

Contempt Case No. 5884 OF 2022

Date: 13.12.2022

Psr