Delhi High Court
Ps Gupta vs Uoi And Ors. on 16 March, 2011
Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 7146/2010
Date of Decision:16th March, 2011
PS GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. A.K.Jain, Advocate
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocate
with Mr. Mohit Auluck, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)
1. The petitioner was employed by the State Farm
Corporation of India Ltd. Admittedly, the requirements of Section
1(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, "the Act") are
satisfied. Section 3 of the said Act enjoins the appropriate
government to appoint any officer to be a controlling authority, who
shall be responsible for the administration of that Act. Section 4 of
the Act directs payment of gratuity to any employee provided the
requirements of that Section are satisfied.
WP(C) No.7146/2010 Page 1 of 5
2. In this case also, it is the case of the petitioner that the
requirements of this Act are satisfied. The only thing being that
according to the petitioner, by virtue of a memorandam and orders,
his entitlement to gratuity is much more than what has been
released to him by the respondent on his retirement. He pegs his
total entitlement at Rs. 10 lakhs. According to him, since he has
already received Rs.3.5 lakhs, he is, therefore, entitled to further
amount of Rs. 6.5 lakhs.
3. Section 7(4)(a), (b),(c) and (d) provide as follows:-
"(4)(a) - If there is any dispute to the amount
of gratuity payable to an employee under this Act
or as to the admissibility of any claim of, or in
relation to, an employee for payment of gratuity,
or as to the person entitled to receive the gratuity,
the employer shall deposit with the controlling
authority such amount as he admits to be payable
by him as gratuity.
(b) Where there is a dispute with regard to any
matter or matters specified in clause (a), the
employer or employee or any other person raising
the dispute may make an application to the
controlling authority for deciding the dispute.
(c) The controlling authority shall, after due
inquiry and after giving the parties to the dispute
a reasonable opportunity of being heard,
determine the matter or matters in dispute and if,
as a result of such inquiry any amount is found to
be payable to the employee, the controlling
authority shall direct the employer to pay such
amount or, as the case may be, such amount as
reduced by the amount already deposited by the
employer.
WP(C) No.7146/2010 Page 2 of 5
(d) The controlling authority shall pay the
amount deposited, including the excess amount, if
any, deposited by the employer, to the person
entitled thereto."
4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that at the time
when the petitioner retired from service under the relevant rules,
the petitioner's entitlement was Rs. 3.5 lacs. Furthermore, Section
4(3) of the Act, as it stood at that time, also contemplated that the
amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed Rs. 3.5
lakhs. However, by an office memorandum of 26.11.2008, it was
directed that the gratuity of officers, such as the petitioner, would
stand raised to Rs. 10 lakhs, with retrospective effect, from
1.1.2007. It is the petitioner's case that if this is given its natural
effect, then the petitioner's entitlement to gratuity of Rs. 10 lacs
came into effect retrospectively from 1.1.2007 when the petitioner
was admittedly in service and was yet to retire on 31.12.2007. He
submits that as on the date of his actual retirement, as per Section
4(3) of the Act, the amount of gratuity payable to an employee
could not exceed Rs. 3.5 lakhs and, therefore, notwithstanding the
fact that Section 4(3) has since been amended and the amount of
gratuity payable to an employee can now be up to Rs. 10 lakhs, the
controlling authority, which is the appropriate authority under
Section 7 of the Act, would have no power or jurisdiction to examine
this dispute.
WP(C) No.7146/2010 Page 3 of 5
5. To my mind, Section 4(3) does not relate to the
jurisdiction to be exercised by the controlling authority. It merely
places a ceiling on the gratuity payable to an employee. It does not
limit the jurisdiction of the controlling authority to examine the
dispute.
6. Admittedly, the claim of the petitioner is under the
Statute. The controlling authority which has been appointed in
terms of Section 3 of the Act, is responsible for the administration
of the Act. Significantly, in addition to the provision of Section 4(3),
Section 5 of the Act also contemplates the right of employees to
receive better terms of gratuity from an employer. I, therefore, do
not see how the controlling authority appointed under the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972 would lack jurisdiction to examine this
dispute. The petitioner has shown me no precedent or authority
that might persuade me to hold otherwise.
7. In view of the above, and since an adequate alternative
remedy is available to the petitioner under the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extra ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, leaving it open to
the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority, as per law.
8. It is made clear that no opinion is being expressed on
the merits of the case of either side, and further, an opportunity is
WP(C) No.7146/2010 Page 4 of 5
granted to the petitioner to pursue his claim, if any, before the
appropriate authority under the Act. Provided any such claim is
moved within four weeks from today, the time spent by the
petitioner before this Court shall be excluded for the purposes of
limitation.
9. The petition is dismissed in the above terms.
10. Dasti to counsel for the parties.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
MARCH 16, 2011
sl/dr
