Jamnagar Municpal Corporation ... vs Arvindbhai Girdharlal Kevaliya
2022 Latest Caselaw 4446 Guj

     C/SCA/2793/2021                               JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2022



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2793 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
      JAMNAGAR MUNICPAL CORPORATION THROUGH MUNICIPAL
                       COMMISSIONER
                            Versus
               ARVINDBHAI GIRDHARLAL KEVALIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                               Date : 27/04/2022

                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Though served, nobody appears for the respondent

no.1.

2. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Krutik Parikh

learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on

behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3.

C/SCA/2793/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2022

3. With the consent of learned advocates for the

respective parties, the petition is taken up for final

hearing.

4. The Jamnagar Municipal Corporation has challenged

the orders of the Controlling Authority as well as the

Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity

Act, 1972, by which, on an application made by the

respondent no.1 for interest on delayed payment of

gratuity, the Controlling Authority awarded an

amount of Rs.40,185/- as interest on the amount of

gratuity paid to the respondent workman.

5. Perusal of the orders of the authorities below would

indicate that simply relying on the provisions of

Section 7(3) of the Act, the authorities have

proceeded further to award interest.

6. Mr.H.S.Munshaw learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that there was no delay on the part of

the Corporation to pay the amount of gratuity. The

respondent no.1 workman retired on 31.08.2014.

Before his retirement, he was served with a charge-

C/SCA/2793/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2022

sheet. The departmental proceedings continued

post his retirement. On 27.02.2015 an order of

penalty of stoppage of two increments was imposed.

Accordingly after the imposition of penalty, on an

application made by the petitioner on 04.03.2015,

terminal benefits were finalized and paid on

16.03.2015.

7. Mr.Munshaw would rely on the provisions of Section

7(3) of the Act and he would submit that at best, it is

the responsibility of the employer to pay gratuity

within a period of 30 days from the date of the

entitlement of the respondent. Taking 27.02.2015 as

the relevant date, admittedly within 30 days, the

amount was paid and therefore, no interest was

warranted on the delayed payment of gratuity.

8. Considering the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, what is evident from the

facts of the case is that the petitioner was faced with

departmental proceedings, pursuant to which, a

charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. As a

result of a charge-sheet and pending departmental

C/SCA/2793/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2022

inquiry which was continued post retirement,

penalty of stoppage of 2 increments without future

increment was imposed by order dated 27.02.2015.

9. It was only then that the entitlement of the gratuity

of the respondent crystallized and he retired on

31.08.2014 and on his request post the penalty on

04.03.2015, the gratuity amount was paid to the

respondent no.1 on 16.03.2015. Admittedly

therefore no fault that can be attributed to the

employer in not paying the amount of gratuity due to

the respondent no.2. The orders of the Controlling

Authority dated 16.04.2019 and that of the Appellate

Authority dated 25.09.2020 are quashed and set

aside.

10. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) ANKIT SHAH