Rawel Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, dismissing the case of the the petitioner for grant of gratuity amount due to him consequent upon his retirement.

The petitioner joined the service of the Punjab Roadways as a Driver on 17.4.1951. He continued to serve as such till January, 1980 when his services were transferred to Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.1982. On his retirement, he made a representation to the State of Punjab as well as the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, for the payment of gratuity amount due to him. There was some confusion at the level of Punjab Roadways as well as State of Punjab, as to who is infact liable to pay the gratuity amount. The petitioner was entitled to gratuity amount for the period he served the Punjab Roadways, and the Municipal Corporation was saying that it was liable to pay the amount only for the period the petitioner served in the Corporation. The petitioner thereafter, served a notice on 1.9.1982 u/s 80, Code of Civil Procedure, on the State of Punjab, through its Secretary, Government of Punjab, Local Self Department. The General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar, as well as Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. Despite the issuance of said notice, the full gratuity amount was not paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was left with no other remedy except to approach the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, by way of an application for the grant of said amount.

The application was contested by the respondents. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act :-

Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application ? OPR.

Whether the application is not maintainable under Payment of Wages Act ? OPR.

Whether the application is barred by limitation ? OPR.

Whether the applicant is entitled to recover Rs. 16,675/- on account of gratuity. If so, from whom ? OPA.

Relief.

Issues Nos. 1 to 3 were not pressed and consequently, application of the petitioner was allowed and he was held entitled to gratuity amount, from respondent No. 3. The Municipal Corporation was directed to pay the total amount of gratuity to the petitioner, after adjusting the amount already paid to him. This order was impugned by respondent No. 3 before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, who is the appellate Authority under the Act. Though issues No. 1 to 3 were not pressed before the first Court, yet at the Bar, it was stated before the appellate Authority that the issues were pressed. The appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 3 and dismissed the application of the petitioner which was allowed by the first Court only on the ground of limitation. However, at the same time, the appellate Authority found that respondent No. 3 alone is liable to-pay the gratuity to the petitioner. This order is being impugned by way of present revision petition.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that the revision petition deserves to succeed.

The application of the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate Authority primarily on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. The plea of limitation was never pressed before the first Court and therefore, I fall to understand, that how a plea which had been abandoned by the respondent, could be re-agitated before the appellate Authority Even on record, I find that the petitioner immediately after his retirement started making representations for the release of gratuity amount, but due to confusion at the level of Municipal Corporation and Punjab Roadways, the same was not paid to him. He also served a notice u/s 80, C.P.C. but no attention whatsoever was paid by the respondent. If the appellate Authority had taken this aspect of the matter into consideration, delay if any, was liable to be condoned. Counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out anything from the record that the delay on the part of the petitioner was deliberate.

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to pay the amount of gratuity, if not paid, after adjustment of amount already paid, to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.

In case, the Municipal Corporation is entitled for any reimbursement on account of payment of gratuity to the petitioner, the Corporation shall be entitled to proceed and recover the same from the Punjab Government.

The parties are left to bear their own costs.