AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Returnable forthwith.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 2.
This petition can be finally disposed off at the admission stage. I have informed the parties that I hold a few shares of the 2nd respondent company. The parties have no objection to the matter being heard by this Court.
The petitioner was an employee of the respondent no. 2. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 18.3.1991 on completion of 42 years of continuous service.
The petitioner claimed gratuity from the respondent. The dispute in respect of payment of gratuity was ultimately decided by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by its order dated 28.2.1995. The appeal filed by the petitioner being Appeal (PGA) No. 35 of 1994 was allowed. The appellate authority held that the workmen was entitled to gratuity of Rs. 50,000/- along with the interest thereon at the rate of 10% from 18.4.1991 as more particularly set out therein. The amount payable by respondent no. 2 to the petitioner works out to Rs. 60,718.63. The appeal preferred by the 2nd respondent company was dismissed by the appellate authority. The said amount was lying deposited before the Labour Court, to the credit of Application (PGA) No. 106 of 1992. By an order dated 13.3.1995, the Labour Court allowed the petitioner workman to withdraw the amount deposited by the company. The respondent No. 2 preferred an application before the Labour Court seeking review of order dated 16.3.1995 by the labour Court. By order dated 21.3.1995, the Labour Court directed that the above referred amount shall be withdrawn by the petitioner workman after four weeks from the date of the order as prayed for.
There appears to be no dispute in respect of the amount of gratuity payable by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. The petitioner has not vacated the service accommodation. The respondent No. 2 should adopt necessary legal proceedings against the petitioner in this behalf instead of obstructing the petitioner from withdrawing the amount of gratuity. The Labour Court had no jurisdiction to prevent the petitioner from withdrawing the amount of Rs. 60,718.63 deposited by respondent no. 2 before the Labour Court.
In this situation, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The Labour Court is directed to allow the petitioner to withdraw the above referred amount deposited by respondent no. 2 forthwith.
Ms. Mhatre, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a grievance that the office of the Registrar unnecessarily asked the advocate for the petitioner to delete the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court from the cause title of the petition. The office should not have done so. If the petitioner wishes to implead the trial court or the concerned authority as party respondent in a writ petition, the petitioner is entitled to do so. The office is directed to keep this observation in mind for future.
Issue of certified copy expedited.