AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil
Though this matter is posted today for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. The appellants who are the legal representatives of the deceased T. Narayana Swamy, assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 12/07/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 34955/2010 (L-KSRTC), have presented this appeal, so far as it relates to dental of interest on difference of gratuity and in not directing the respondents to pay the simple interest on the difference of gratuity from the date of retirement till the date of payment.
The only grievance of the appellants-petitioners is that, they have filed a writ, petition before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 34955/2030 against the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 15.5.2010 vide Annexure-C and the order dated 16.4.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-B. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 12th July 2011. The learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition by quashing the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent-Controlling Authority for consideration over the claim for re-determination of difference of gratuity of the deceased by considering the reckoning of the period of service allegedly rendered as continuous service from 1969 through to 31.1.1975 and thereafter, to pass orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in para-5 of the said order. It is the case of the appellants that, the observation made by the learned Single Judge in Para-5 of the impugned order is contrary to section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and therefore, it is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, in so far as denial of interest on difference of gratuity is concerned.
We have heard learned counsel for appellants Sri. M.C. Basavaraju and Sri. Narendra Prasad, learned Government Header appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. After careful perusal of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, if appears that, inadvertently, learned Single Judge has not referred to section 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which clearly states that, "If the amount of gratuity payable under sub section 3 is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub section 3, the employer shall pay from the dare on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long tern) deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify. When the statute itself provides the benefit of entitlement of interest, denying the same for no fault of the appellants is not justifiable. It appears that, this aspect of the matter has been inadvertently left over by the learned Single Judge, at the time of disposal of the matter, in view of not giving proper assistance by the counsel. Therefore, to safeguard the interest of both the appellants and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 including the respondent No. 3, we hereby clarify that, 2nd respondent shall consider the case afresh as directed by the learned Single Judge of this Court as per order dated 12/7/2011 and in consonance with Section 7(3A) of the Act, with regard to the payment of interest and decide the same, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and after issuing notice to respondent No. 3 and dispose of the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above observations, this appeal stands disposed of.
Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within four weeks from today.