National Seeds Corporation Limited vs H.L. Mehta and Another

Mukul Mudgal, J.—Rule. The matter is taken up for final hearing. This writ petition challenges the order of the Appellate Authority dated February 15, 1999 by which the appellate authority set aside the order of the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated September 21, 1998. The appellate authority held as follows:

"In view of the matter recorded above, in my opinion the controlling authority erred in holding that the non-applicant had correctly recovered Rs. 8700/- from the amount of gratuity due to the applicant. Both the parties did not dispute the amount of Rs. 8700/- and tried to justify for and against the deduction effected from the amount of gratuity paid to the appellant. After hearing the learned counsels of both the parties and the materials on record I hold that the deduction of Rs. 8700/- effected by the respondent from the gratuity amount of the appellant is not justified and the respondent should pay the amount of Rs. 8700/- from the date of gratuity was payable with 11% interest till the date of payment."

The main plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that this is not a matter which concerns gratuity and it only concerns the finalisation of T.A. Bills. The order of the appellate authority clearly states that Rs. 8700/-was deducted from the gratuity amount of the appellant and accordingly I am satisfied that the appellate authority and the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act did have the jurisdiction. The appellate authority had recorded a finding that no convincing evidence was furnished by the petitioner for effecting deduction of Rs. 8700/- from the gratuity amount due to the retiring workman who retired as far back as 1993. No legal infirmity has been shown in the order which is based on the fact that no convincing evidence for effecting the deduction of Rs. 8700/- has been produced. Even otherwise no interference is warranted against an order which merely grants Rs. 8700/- to a senior citizen who retired in 1993. Accordingly the writ petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.