The petitioner mill filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Controlling Authority / first respondent appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.
2.The brief facts of the case are that the second respondent made an application before the Controlling Authority / first respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act under
Section 7, wherein the the second respondent claimed the payment of Gratuity of Rs.52,500/-due to him.
3.The second respondent joined the service of the petitioner Management on 01.01.1962 and retired from service on 01.03.1998. There was a dispute with regard to the Payment of Gratuity of Rs.44,919/- which was already paid by the petitioner towards full and final settlement and executed the stamped receipt. No amount is due to the second respondent and at present, the same was disputed by the second respondent.
4.Accordingly, the second respondent had filed a petition vide P.G.No.57/2003 under Section 4 of the Gratuity Act 1972 before the Controlling Authority/first respondent. The Controlling Authority / first respondent had passed an order, directing the petitioner Mill to pay the Gratuity amount of Rs.52,500/- with interest at 10% per annum within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. There was no proof to show that Rs.44,919/- was paid by the petitioner Management. However, on a perusal of exhibit, which was marked before the Controlling Authority/ first respondent as Management document M1, shows that the second respondent had received Rs.44,919/- as full and final settlement from Rajeswari Mills and the same was found in the last two lines of the receipt. The Management has clearly brought to the attention of this Court that the payment has already been made to the second respondent by the petitioner Management. The same is extracted as follows:
g[SU:k; oghh;l;bkz;oy; ntiy bra;J te;j o/be/5 Mh;/v/ khad;. j-bg/ mh;$%dd; vd;gth; kpy; ntiypapyUe;J Xa;t[ bgw ntz;oa taJ 58 g{h;j;jpahfp tpl;lgoahy; 1/3/98 njjpapypUe;J kpy; ntiyia tpl;L tpyfp xa;t[ bgw;Wf; bfhz;lgoahy; md;dhUf;F bfhLj;j (fpuh$%a{l;o) gzpf;bfhil Jifia fPH;f;fz;l tpgug;go ,Wjpahft[k;. bkhj;jkhft[k; fzf;F Koj;J bfhLj;j tpguk;/ kpy; ntiyapy; mkh;e;j njjp : 1/3/1976 kpy; ntiyapypUe;J Xa;t[ bgw;w njjp : 1/3/1998
---------
0/0/22 bkhj;j ntiyf; fhy';fs; 22 tUl';fs;
ruhrhp xUehs; rk;gsk; U:/136/13 15 ehs; rk;gsk; 136/13 x 15 U:/2041/95 bkhj;j ntiyf; fhy';fs; 22 tUl';fSf;F tUlk; 1f;F 15 ehs; rk;gsk; tPjk; bfhLj;j fpuh$Pa[l;;o) gzpf; bfhil Jif U:/2041/95 x 22 = U:/44.922/90 fHpt[fs; :
----------
j/eh/bjh/e/epjp U:/3/00 bjh/j/fld; r';fs; ,y;iy gz;lfrhiy ,y;iy
---------
nkw;fz;l tpgug;go rhpaha; ,ue;J ,Wjpahft[k;. bkhj;jkhft[k; bgw;Wf; bfhz;nld;/ nkw;bfhz;l fpuh$pa[l;o Jiff;fhf ntW ve;jtpjkhd jiyg;gpnya[k; vdf;F ghf;fpahf nruntz;oaJ xd;Wkpy;iy vdt[k; ,J Kjw;bfhz;L _ uhn$!;thp kpy;!; ypl;. eph;thfj;jpw;Fk; vdf;Fk; ve;jtpjkhd gpd; bjhlh;r;rpa[kpy;iy/
5.From the above, it is clear that the second respondent has received the gratuity amount as full and final settlement and except that, he has no other claim whatsoever from the Petitioner Mill. However, the Controlling Authority / first respondent, arrived at a decision that the gratuity amount was not received by the second respondent from the petitioner Mill, which is incorrect, in view of the endorsement of the petitioner acknowledging the receipt of the gratuity amount.
6.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the first respondent / Labour Court is set aside. The petitioner Management is accordingly permitted to file an application before the Controlling Authority / first respondent to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner Management. No costs.
kas 21.09.2017 To
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Gratuity), Deputy Commissioner Labour Office, Chennai 600 006.
W.P.No.33975 of 2003