Institute Of Economic Growth vs Controlling Officer Under ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 654 Del

*            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

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.

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

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