Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court ...
1995 Latest Caselaw 366 Del

JUDGMENT

1. The amount of gratuity worked out in terms of statement of claim (Annexure P-3) dated May 10, 1988, is Rs. 50,603.50. Learned counsel for the workman and the petitioner both agree that there is a calculation mistake in arriving at the aforesaid amount and the correct amount is Rs. 45,618.46. In this view, we hold that the workman is entitled to receive gratuity amount of Rs. 45,618.46 with costs.

2. Regarding interest amount, according to impugned order dated September 15, 1994, made by the Labour Court, the petitioner is entitled to interest from the date of retirement. The workman retired on November 30, 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Regular First Appeal was dismissed by this Court on October 8, 1990, and the workman in terms of Rule 65 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 became entitled to gratuity only on October 8, 1990 and, therefore, the liability of MCD to pay interest on gratuity amount would arise only from October 8, 1990. We do not agree. The admitted facts are that the services of the workman were terminated on June 30, 1962. The workman challenged the termination by filing a suit for declaration in the year 1966. The said suit was decreed on June 10, 1970. Thereafter the workman was taken back in service. The Corporation had preferred an appeal against the decree/judgment dated June 10, 1970. The said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Corporation on October 8, 1990. On reading of Rule 65 referred to above, it cannot be said that workman would be entitled to interest from October 8, 1990 and not from the date of retirement. The date from which the workman is entitled to interest cannot be made dependent upon the date when Corporation withdrew the appeal. We do not find any illegality in the Award except to the extent that the gratuity amount payable would not be Rs. 50,603.50 but will be Rs. 45,618.46.

3. Mr. Shiv Kumar states that Deputy Commissioner, Recovery Branch, Room No. 9, Old Civil Supplies, Delhi has recovered a sum of Rs. 50,603.50 from the bank account of the petitioner for making payment to the workman. The said amount would of course, be paid to the workman as the amount payable is Rs. 45,618.46 with costs and interest from the date of retirement till payment. We direct MCD to deposit the amount with the aforesaid office. On balance amount being deposited within a period of one month, the petitioner may be paid back the amount deposited in this Court pursuant to order of May 8, 1995. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.