Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs Shri Chaturbhuj and Another

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 27.9.2007 passed by Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner-Board and affirmed the order dated 26.7.1999 passed by Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the Controlling Authority directed the Petitioner-Board to make the payment of less paid gratuity amount of Rs. 16,812/- to the Respondent No. 1 along-with interest @ 10% per annum.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner canvassed that as per order dated 14.5.1999, the cases of gratuity, which have been decided prior to 24.7.1997, cannot be reopened. The case of the Petitioner was decided on 25.1.1995, as such in the light of the order dated 14.5.1999, his case ought not to have been reopened. Both the authorities i.e. controlling authority and appellate authority have illegally exercised the jurisdiction and hence, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the cut off date, as fixed by the Petitioner-Board in their order dated 14.5.1999 is found to be sans any basis. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Board has utterly failed to convince me as to on what basis this cut off date has been fixed. There is nothing on record, which could show that the Respondent workman was not entitled to receive the gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act and further the provisions of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Pension and Gratuity Act, 1988 were applicable on him.

This Court is not expected to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution unless the impugned order is found to be perverse, contrary to material on record or results in manifesting injustice. There is a concurrent finding of fact and this Court is not required to upset the pure findings of fact.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is found to be bereft of any merit and the same stands dismissed accordingly.