Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Mathurbhai vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|08 February, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Kanabar, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner appears to have retired from his employment w.e.f. 31st October 2009.
3. Since he was not paid the amount towards gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, he was compelled to take out proceedings under the Act before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority under the Act passed appropriate order. The order was taken before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority passed the order and still the petitioner workman did not receive the decreed amount. The petitioner, therefore, requested the competent authority to issue recovery certificate and that therefore recovery certificate came to be issued in August 2011. Since after the entire process the recovery certificate has still not been executed the petitioner has approached the Court by filing present petition.
4. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and considering the submissions made by learned counsel, office is directed to issue Notice to the respondents making it returnable on 29th February 2012.
5. Direct service is permitted in addition to the service of process in regular course by the Registry.
6. If in absence of any injunction order by the Court in proceedings against the order passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority staying the direction to pay the amount of gratuity, the amounts are not paid and if the office of Collector or office of TDO/Mamlatdar have failed to execute the recovery certificate then the concerned officer of respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall remain present in the Court and give detail reasons explaining the entire length of delay in not making the payment and/or executing the recovery certificate.
7. Either the respondent shall take steps to recover and pay the amount towards gratuity to the petitioner or shall file detail reply as aforesaid, otherwise, both the respondents shall remain present on the returnable date of the notice.
8. The learned A.G.P. is directed to intimated the aforesaid direction and the process to be issued by the Registry.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mathurbhai vs State

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
08 February, 2012