Rajasthan High Court
Rukhsar Ahmed vs Mashkur Khan Son Of Shri Abdul ... on 31 January, 2023
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2023/RJJP/001050]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11343/2022
Rukhsar Ahmed, Manager, M/s. Babu Bhai Raseed Bhai Bidi
Manufacturing Factory, Near Jama Masjid, Dholakhar, Karauli,
District Karauli (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
Mashkur Khan Son Of Shri Abdul Shakur Khan, Resident Of
Bagur Mohalla, Dholakhar, Karauli, District Karauli (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.Faisal Baig
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malkhan Chaturvedi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
31/01/2023
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed against the order dated 29-4-2022
passed by the Appellate Authority under the Gratuity
Payment Act, 1972, whereby the petitioner's appeal
No.3/2021 has been dismissed and affirmed the order dated
20-12-2019 passed by the Controlling Authority under the
Gratuity Payment Act Karauli (hereafter `the Authority')
whereby and whereunder the petitioner was to pay
Rs.71,388/- to respondent along with simple interest from 8-
2-2013.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an
application before the authority claiming that he worked in
[2023/RJJP/001050] (2 of 4) [CW-11343/2022]
employment of petitioner from 1-3-1989 to 1-11-2011 for
about 23 years for monthly salary of Rs.5380/- and therefore
filed the application claiming gratuity Rs.62,100/- along with
interest. On service, the petitioner filed reply and submitted
that the respondent was not his regular employee, and since
he was a part time employee he was not entitled to any
gratuity.
The Authority after framing issues considered affidavit of
respondent and documents Ex.4 to Ex.11, which were details
of PF account for certain years, Ex.12 and 13 the Identity
card of respondent and finding that the petitioner did not file
any affidavit nor cross examined the respondent, came to the
conclusion vide order dated 20-12-2019, that respondent had
worked for 23 years and held the respondent entitled to get
gratuity Rs.71,388/- with simple interest from 8-2-2013. The
amount of gratuity was to be paid within thirty days, failing
which the amount was to carry compound interest.
3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 20-12-2019, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority,
which has finding no force in the appeal dismissed the appeal
filed by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material
available on record.
5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Appellate
Authority indicates that the it has properly considered all
[2023/RJJP/001050] (3 of 4) [CW-11343/2022]
grounds raised by the petitioner. With regard to no continue
service of respondent, it has been observed that since
employer possess all records, it was his duty to produce
relevant documents but he did not do so, therefore the
documents produced by respondent have been rightly relied
upon. With regard to delay in filing application by respondent
it has been observed that in case of any dispute regarding
gratuity the employer is duty bound to deposit the due
gratuity with the authorised authority. With regard to "no
instruction" pleaded by petitioner's counsel and no notice was
issued to petitioner, the Appellate Authority held that despite
no instruction pleaded by the counsel the Authority provided
an opportunity to the counsel for cross examining the
respondent, but he did not do so, thereafter the said
opportunity was closed. It was also found by the Appellate
Authority that several opportunities were given to petitioner
right from 23-5-2014 till 20-12-2019 when no instruction was
pleaded by counsel for petitioner, and thereafter the
application was decided on 20-12-2019. In such
circumstances the Appellate Authority did not find any merit
in the appeal filed by petitioner and dismissing the same has
affirmed the order passed by the Authority.
6. For reasons discussed herein above, there is no illegality
or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the
Appellate Authority and it has rightly affirmed the order
[2023/RJJP/001050] (4 of 4) [CW-11343/2022]
passed by the Authority. Counsel for petitioner has not able
to point out any illegality in impugned orders. There is no
force in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
No costs.
7. Counsel for the petitioner states at bar that the amount
of gratuity as ordered to be paid in the impugned order has
already been deposited, though under protest. The amount of
gratuity as directed by the Authority and deposited by
petitioner be disbursed to respondent.
8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any,
also stands disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Arn/51
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
