AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 A.M. onward. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.
Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner- Management and Mr. Niranjan Singh, Counsel appearing for the respondent.
It has been argued by Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta that admittedly petitioner is entitled for gratuity, which is not in dispute as per Section 4(1) (c) & 4 (5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The workman has been paid the entire amount as per his entitlement.
Learned Counsel further argues that it is beyond the purview, scope and jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority to recalculate the amount which has already been determined under the Payment of Gratuity Act and to issue directions to the Management to make further payment.
On the other hand, Mr. Niranjan Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent opposing the contention of Mr. Mehta submits that as per clause (5) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the workman is entitled for the enhanced amount.
To buttress his argument, Mr. Niranjan Singh places reliance on certain judgments and argues that in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court the workman is entitled for the enhanced amount as determined by the Appellate Authority.
Since the workman has already received the amount, as determined, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the only amount in dispute is Rs. 40,520/-
It has been further argued by Counsels for the parties that this issue requires hearing and as such the matter be admitted for hearing.
Admit.
Since the respondent has already appeared, no notice need be issued.
Parties may file additional documents by way of affidavit if they so wish.
Put up this case under the heading 'For Hearing" in usual course.