CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2009) 02 KAR CK 0014

H.K.E. Society vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 5 February 2009 · Citation: (2011) 1 KCCR 344

HON’BLE JUDGES
H.G. Ramesh, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 7304 of 2008 (L-PG)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 338 words

H.G. Ramesh, J.—This writ petition by the H.K.E. Society, Gulbarga is directed against the order dated 3.4.2008 (Annexure-D) passed by Respondent No. 1-the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (''the Act''), Gulbarga, dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner for non-compliance of the second proviso to Section 7(7) of the Act.

2.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order at Annexure-D.

3.

It is relevant to state that Respondent No. 2-the Controlling Authority by its order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure-A) had determined the gratuity amount payable by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 3 at Rs. 1,29,720/- along with interest thereon @ 8% p.a. from 31.10.2003 till the date of deposit. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner herein while presenting the appeal u/s 7(7) of the Act did not deposit the aforesaid amount held payable either with the Controlling Authority or the Appellate Authority as contemplated under the second proviso to Section 7(7) of the Act.

4.

Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3, in support of the impugned order, relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in Christian Medical College and Hospital v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) 2003 LAB. I.C. 2453. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the said judgment. When the Controlling Authority quantifies the gratuity amount payable and directs the employer to pay the same, the said sum is the amount which is required to be deposited in terms of the second proviso to Section 7(7) of the Act while preferring the appeal. Accordingly, I find no legal infirmity in the impugned order at Annexure-D to warrant interference.

5.

However, in the interest of justice, the Petitioner is given liberty to deposit the amount determined as payable, either with the Controlling Authority or the Appellate Authority within one month from today; on such deposit, Respondent No. 1 -the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal of the Petitioner on merits and dispose it of in accordance with law.