Chattisgarh High Court
Sub Area Manager, South Eastern ... vs The Appellate Authority Under The ... on 29 October, 2021
-1-
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
WPL No. 34 of 2021
Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfield Limited Versus The
Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act
29/10/2021 Shri Vivek Verma, counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on admission.
Issue notice to respondent on payment of process fee as per
rules. Notice be made returnable within three weeks.
Also heard on IA No.2, application for grant of interim relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent
No.3, in a departmental enquiry was terminated. The order of
termination of his services was put to challenge in appeal which
was dismissed and the revisional authority also dismissed his
revision. Challenge to order of termination from services is pending
before Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) as is
apparent from Annexure P-7. He submits that during pendency of
challenge to his termination from services, respondent No.3 filed
application under Section 7(4) before the Controlling Authority
under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as
"Gratuity Act") for payment of gratuity to him. The petitioner
submitted reply to the application taking specific pleadings that in
view of the challenge to his termination pending before the Court
of CGIT, the application under Section 7 (4) of the Gratuity Act for
payment of gratuity was not maintainable but Controlling Authority
has not considered and decided the issue raised by the petitioner
and have passed an order directing payment of gratuity to
respondent No.3. The order of Controlling Authority was put to
challenge by the petitioner under Section 7 (7) of the Gratuity Act
and the Appellate Authority also have not decided the main issue
raised by the petitioner with regard to maintainability of the
application for grant of gratuity but have decided the other issue
whether respondent No.3 is entitled for gratuity or not. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of Section 4
of the Gratuity Act, gratuity is payable if an employee attained the
age of superannuation, on his retirement or resignation or the
death or disablement and none of the aforementioned contingency
is arriving when the order of dismissal of respondent No.3 is under
challenge before the CGIT.
To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by High Court
of Gujarat in the case of Sabarkantha District Central Co-
operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramanbhai M Patel & Ors , decided on
26.2.2010.
Taking into consideration the provision contained under
Section 4 of the Gratuity Act, the submission that challenge to
termination of respondent No.3 is still pending consideration before
CGIT, it is directed that the amount of gratuity deposited by the
petitioner pending before the Controlling Authority shall not be
disbursed till the next date of hearing.
List this case in the week commencing 29 th November
2021.
Sd/--/-/-/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
