Commissioner, Corporation of city of Panaji vs Subhash R. Prabhu

R.M. Savant, J.—Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 13/12/2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Panaji, Goa by which order, the application filed by the respondent herein u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act'' for short) came to the allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 9,50,905/- towards his gratuity, encashment of E.L., arrears of pay, commutation of pension amount and pension at the rate of 10 % p.a. from the date of his superannuation. It appears that the respondent herein superannuated on 30/9/2006, as an employee of the petitioner Municipal Corporation. The respondent was occupying the municipal quarters which he continued to occupy post his retirement i.e. till 25/3/2013. By letter dated 15/5/2012 addressed to the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, the respondent requested the Commissioner to permit him to occupy the municipal quarters for a further period of 2 1/2 years as his son was studying for professional course and also in view of the fact that he, did not have any alternate accommodation. It was further stated that he also wanted to make necessary arrangement regarding the marriage of his daughter. It has been further stated in the said letter that he may be paid 75 % of his retirement dues by keeping 25 % with the Corporation and the same may be paid to him after he vacates the municipal quarters. This request that the Corporation may retain 25 % of the amount was probably made. In view of the settlement which was arrived at by the Corporation with its employees, wherein in respect of the service quarters, the said provision was made.

The principal grievance of the Municipal Corporation as urged by its learned Counsel Shri Dessai is that the award of interest at the rate of 10 % p.a. to the respondent by the Labour Court from the date of his superannuation was unwarranted in the facts and, circumstances of the present case as mentioned here-in-above. The learned Counsel would contend that the petitioner Corporation has no objection to the payment of the principal amount, but the rate of interest which has been awarded is a bit excessive, if considered in the facts and circumstances of the present case where the respondent was occupying the municipal quarters till 25/3/2013. It is well settled that the award of interest is in the discretion of the Court. However, the award of the interest should not be such that it is arbitrary and confers a bounty on the party, who has been awarded interest. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my view, the award of interest at the rate of 10% p.a. is a bit excessive. Considering that the petitioner is a public body and the respondent was occupying the municipal quarters well passed his retirement, the interest of justice would be served if the said award of interest is modified by directing the petitioner-Municipal Corporation to pay interest at the rate of 6 % p.a. from the date to the respondent till the payment of the amount. It appears that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs. 9 Lakhs in this Court. The petitioner is directed to deposit in this Court the balance amount of Rs. 50,905/- as also the interest calculated in terms of this order within four weeks from date. After the amount is so deposited, the respondent would be entitled to withdraw the entire amount that would be deposited by the Corporation. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court-II is modified to the extent mentioned here-in-above. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with parties to bear their respective costs of the petition.