Virendra Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

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. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and

video clarity and quality.

Heard the parties.

Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned counsel appears for the petitioner and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appears for respondent No. 3-Bank.

Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his prayer and submits that petitioner has approached this Court for grant

of statutory interest/ interest on delayed payment of gratuity. In support of his case, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment passed by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of H. Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corp. Ltd., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 4.0 Learned

counsel further places reliance to proviso to Sub-Section 3-A of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which reads as under:

Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained

permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.

It has further been argued that as per Section-4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, petitioner was entitled for gratuity and the same was paid but

simultaneously he was also entitled for simple interest as per the statute which was wrongly denied by the respondents.

From perusal of the records it appears that nowhere it is reflected in the documents brought on record that the respondents had ever obtained

permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment of gratuity.

Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that admittedly the fault lies on the part of petitioner as he had moved the

Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing several cases and he has lost at each and every forum. Thereafter, the authorities

considered for payment of gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act. Mr. Pati submits that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is not applicable in his case and does not come to his rescue as the fault admittedly lies on the part of the petitioner and when the delay is on

the part of the petitioner/ employee, even permission is not required.

However, nothing has been whispered neither any document has been brought on record to show that employer has obtained permission in writing

from the controlling authority for the delayed payment.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank seeks some time to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record the document which could show that

permission in writing has been obtained from the controlling authority for the delayed payment of gratuity.

As prayed by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, put-up this case after three weeks, i.e. 08.09.2020.