Assistant Executive Engineer and Others vs Gangawwa and Others

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The respondents-workmen filed an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act before the Controlling Authority. The petitioners appeared before the Controlling authority and contended that the amounts claimed by the respondents are not the actual amounts. The proceedings were held at the Bijapur Camp. That, without any notice to the petitioners the impugned order has been passed determining the gratuity payable to the respondents. The same has been awarded along with interest at 10% per annum. The last drawn wages as claimed by the workmen were taken into consideration. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal while considering the wages as claimed by the workman. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. Identical issues arise for consideration in all these writ petitions. Though the quantum of amounts awarded by the authorities vary, the sum and substance of the reasoning of the authorities as well as the contentions of both the parties are one and the same. Therefore at the request of learned counsels, all the writ petitions are taken up for consideration together.

The case of the petitioners is that the authorities have wrongly considered the wages of the respondents. That it is not a case of any denial of wages to the respondents. The amount as held are far too excessive. Therefore, only the amount as admitted by the petitioners be granted to the respondents.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order. He submits that the claim set up by the workmen is just and proper. That they are entitled to the amount as claimed by them.

Heard learned counsels. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo with regard to the amounts pertaining to each of the workmen, admitted rate of wage, the admitted gratuity and the amount as awarded by the authority. The same is extracted as follows:

I have considered the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority. The same are in consonance with law. The amount as held by the Controlling Authority appears to be just and appropriate. I find no good ground to interfere with the said order.

The amounts as awarded to the respondents are a meager sum. Even otherwise by taking into consideration the amount as admitted by the petitioners and the amount as awarded by the respondents, the difference of gratuity payable to the respondents is a paltry sum. It is hardly in the range of about Rs. 40,000/- per workman. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that firstly there is no merit in these petitions and secondly, even if the contention of the petitioners is to be accepted, the difference of gratuity amount is very paltry. It will be highly inappropriate to interfere with the said amounts.

However, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest awarded at 10% per annum would appear to be on the higher side. Under these circumstances, it is only just and appropriate that the rate of interest be reduced to 6% per annum.

Consequently, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders are modified to the extent of reducing the rate of interest to 6% per annum. Rest of the order sustains.

The petitions are disposed off accordingly.