Durha Components P. Ltd. vs M.A. Ansari And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 149 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 17th December, 2003 passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 7(7) of the Act. Before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner challenged the order dated 19th February, 2003 passed by the Controlling Authority directing payment of Rs.60,577/- along with interest, which amount was deposited before the Appellate Authority on 22nd March, 2003.

3. The plea taken by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 was working with the petitioner Durha Components from 1-1-1991 to 19-5-2001 and even the liability for the period from 1986 onwards has been fastened on the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not be saddled with the liability of the past employment of respondent No. 1 in other [WP (C) No. 3360/2004] [1 of 2] companies. The appellate authority has affirmed a finding of the Controlling Authority that the petitioner was incorporated in 1986 after acquiring the assets of two companies Rabco Engineering and Engineering Project Services where the respondent was earlier working. It is also clear from the record and the finding that these three concerns are sister concerns. It has also not even been pleaded by the petitioner that payment in full of the dues of the two companies have been made by the petitioner. The record discloses that the respondent was working in the sister companies and at the behest and direction of the petitioner, the respondent was transferred to the petitioner company. In the light of this fact, since the petitioner has acquired the assets of the Rabco Engineering Services and M/s Engineering Project Services where the respondent was working, the disowning of the liability of petitioner cannot be countenanced and is contrary to the mandate of the law. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and the order dated 17th December, 2003 is perfectly in accordance with law and is not liable to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.60,577/- deposited in the Court below. The petitioner shall also pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent against the petitioner in respect of interest.

5. No observation made in this judgment shall come in the way in the adjudication of the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner.

6. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.