[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Rajeshkumar Hiralal Rana vs The J. B. And Brothers Pvt. Ltd on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16197/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16197 of 2025
================================================================
RAJESHKUMAR HIRALAL RANA
Versus
THE J. B. AND BROTHERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated
21.05.2024 passed by the Controlling Authority, Surat under Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") in
Gratuity Case No. 186 of 2023 and the order dated 06.02.2025 passed
by the respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 113 of
2024, whereby, the learned Authority has partly allowed the appeal
filed by the respondent No.1 and modified the order passed by the
Controlling Authority by directing the respondent No.1 to pay
Rs.1,72,212/- with 10% simple interest.
2. Facts of the case in nut-shell are that, the petitioner was initially
appointed in the services of the respondent No.1, however, he was
terminated by the respondent No.1 on 31.12.2022, since the
respondent No.1 had decided to close down the industry. Therefore,
the petitioner sent Form.I seeking gratuity amount against respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16197/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
No.1 for Rs.2,58,058=00 with 10% simple interest. That, despite
receiving Form.I, the gratuity amount was not paid and therefore,
petitioner submitted Form.N before the Controlling Authority, Surat,
whereby the Controlling Authority rejected the gratuity application
filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner
filed Appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, whereby the Appellate Authority remanded the matter
back to the Controlling Authority to decide the same afresh. That,
thereafter, the Controlling Authority after hearing both the sides,
passed an order dated 21.05.2024 in Gratuity Case No.186 of 2023,
whereby the application of the petitioner came to be allowed and the
respondent management was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,72,212/-
with 10% simple interest. That, the respondent management
challenged the order passed by Controlling Authority by filing Appeal
No.113 of 2024, whereby the Appellate Authority partly allowed the
Appeal of the respondent No.1 and directed the respondent
management to pay a sum of Rs.1,72,212/- with 10% interest vide
order dated 06.02.2025.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order and
judgment passed by the learned Controlling Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. Heard Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Mishra has submitted that the impugned
orders passed by the Controlling authority as well as the Appellate
authority are erroneous, illegal and contrary to the facts and records
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16197/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
of the case. He has submitted that the respondent management has
produced so-called settlement along with the resignation letter before
the Controlling Authority, wherein it has been stated that the
respondent management has paid Due wages, Bonus, Leave
Encashment, Gratuity, Notice Pay, Service dues, Retrenchment
compensation, over-time wages and difference of minimum wages.
Thus, if all these dues are to be counted then it will be more than Rs.5
Lakhs, whereas the respondent management has paid a sum of
Rs.1,07,794=00 by account payee cheque to the petitioner and thus,
the aforesaid amount is not paid towards gratuity and therefore, the
Controlling Authority ought to have directed the respondent
management to pay gratuity amount as per application submitted by
the petitioner and therefore, both the orders are required be modified
by directing to respondent management to the pay the gratuity
amount of Rs.2,58,058=00 with 10% simple interest. He has
submitted that Controlling authority as well as the Appellate Authority
had directed the respondent management to give bifurcation of the
amount which the respondent management has paid to the petitioner
pursuant to the resignation submitted by the petitioner, however, the
respondent management had failed to produce the bifurcation of the
aforesaid amount and therefore, the Controlling Authority ought to
have directed the respondent management to pay the gratuity
amount as per the application submitted by the petitioner. Therefore,
both the orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority are erroneous, illegal and unjust. He has further
submitted that the respondent management has failed to establish
their case and not produced a single evidence to establish that the
respondent management has paid gratuity amount to the petitioner,
however, this aspect was not appreciated by both the authorities and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16197/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
therefore, both the orders are required to be quashed and set aside
and the present petition be allowed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone through
the orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate
Authority. The Appellate Authority has rightly awarded the amount
after deducting the amount of Rs.85,846/- already paid by the
respondent No.1 towards gratuity to the petitioner, which was
accepted by the petitioner and receipt was also issued in favour of the
petitioner for the said amount and therefore, the Authorities have not
committed any infirmity or any illegality while passing the impugned
orders. Considering all these aspects, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well
as the Appellate Authority.
7. In the result, the present petition being devoid of any merits,
deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed.
8. If the amount is not deposited by the respondent No.1, the
same shall be deposited within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of order of this Court. Once the amount is deposited, the
same shall be disbursed in favour of the petitioner-workman, after
verifying his bank details and after following due procedure, through
RTGS/NEFT.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
