AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act as also that of the appellate authority.
The Respondent No. 4 served with the Petitioner for a period of 33 years from 05.09.1968 till 30.06.2001 when he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The Petitioner is a member of the Group Pure Endowment Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in terms of Section 4(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
It is the case of the Petitioner that in view of the premium paid by the Petitioner, it is liable to be indemnified against the claims of gratuity by the Insurance Company.
On retirement, workman was held entitled to gratuity of Rs. 2,87,138/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty seven thousand one hundred and thirty eight only) calculated on the last pay drawn. However, the Petitioner was paid only Rs. 2,56,477/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty six thousand four hundred and seventy seven only). The pay scale of the employees working with the Petitioner were revised on 30.06., under statutory settlement arrived at with the workmen u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The pay was revised with retrospective effect. The revised pay scale were even applicable to the Respondent No. I, which entitled him to gratuity of Rs. 3,65,024/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty five thousand and twenty four only).
The Petitioner immediately raised the claim with the Insurance Company for payment of an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh and fifty thousand only)which is the maximum gratuity payable under the Act.
The Respondent No. 4 became entitled to additional gratuity of Rs. 93,523/- (Rupees Ninety three thousand five hundred and twenty three only).
The Respondent No. 4, in order to recover the balance gratuity moved an application before the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for recovery of the amount.
The application filed by the Petitioner was accepted, and the Petitioner herein was ordered to pay additional amount of Rs. 93,523/- (Rupees Ninety three thousand five hundred and twenty three only).
The Petitioner being aggrieved by the order filed a statutory appeal before the appellate authority. In terms of the provisions of the act and the amount determined as payable towards gratuity was deposited with the appellate authority.
The appeal was dismissed.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the impugned orders, only on the ground that the liability to pay gratuity was that of Insurance Company under the policy taken out by the Petitioner.
This plea on the face of it is misconceived. The statutory liability to pay workmen is that of the employer. It is for the employer to recover the amount from the Insurance Company.
The Insurance Company has been wrongly impleaded in this Writ Petition as the person/ legal entity who is not party before the lower court/quasi judicial authorities cannot be impleaded, as a party in the writ petition. In any case insurance company has No. concern with the lis in this case, as the remedy with Petitioner is to claim the amount in terms of policy from the insurance company.
Otherwise also, as already observed above, the statutory liability to pay gratuity is that of the employer, it is for the employer to recover it from the Insurance Company by due process, if the insurance company fails to meet its liability under the policy.
The ground raised to challenge the impugned orders passed by the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act therefore is misconceived and is not sustainable in law.
W.P. No. 64 of 2006
The workmen has filed W.P. No. 64 of 2006 to challenge the orders passed by the authorities under the payment of Gratuity Act, on the ground that interest as envisaged u/s 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, was not granted to the workmen.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that once it is proved that the gratuity was not paid within a period of 30 days, thus the employee is entitled to interest thereon. This plea though attractive cannot be accepted, for the reason that against the non-grant of interest by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the workmen did not file any appeal, rather the workmen defended the order of payment of gratuity.
Once remedy of appeal was not availed, the present Writ Petition to challenge the orders to claim interest will not be competent. Even on facts, No. interference is called for, as the employer has been quick in releasing the payment of gratuity, the balance amount due was only on account of the revision of pay-scale after retirement of the Petitioner.
Consequently, for the reasons stated both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
However, the Petitioner/employer in W.P. No. 4814 of 2005 would be at liberty to recover the amount from the Insurance Company in terms of the policy, in accordance with law.
No. costs.
By way of an interim order, the workmen was permitted to withdraw 50; of the amount deposited before the appellate authority. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petitions, the Petitioner employee is at liberty to withdraw the balance amount of gratuity lying with the appellate authority. The appellate authority is directed to release the gratuity amount to Petitioner in W.P. No. 64 of 2006, i.e., employee forthwith.