THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.3368 of 2012 Date: 22.01.2014 Between :
T.J. Salomi … Petitioner and A.P. State Cooperative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Public Gardens, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.3368 of 2012 ORDER :
In this writ petition, the question that arises for consideration is, whether payment of Gratuity can be denied to the petitioner on the ground that the 1st respondent-A.P. State Cooperative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited is facing financial stringency.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Steno-Typist in the 1st respondent-Corporation on 4.1.1982 and retired from service on 31.7.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. Her grievance is that though she is entitled for payment of Gratuity, the 1st respondent-Corporation has not paid the same.
3. The service conditions of the employees of the 1st respondent-Corporation are governed by its By-laws. By-law No.45 deals with payment of Gratuity. As per the said provision, Gratuity shall be paid to the employees on the basis of the length of service, subject to a maximum of 15 months substantive pay in the case of death or superannuation of an employee. Since the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, she is entitled for payment of Gratuity under the said By-law.
4. The 1st respondent-Corporation does not dispute the entitlement of the petitioner. But, it has taken a stand that it is not in a position to settle her claim due to the financial crisis. It states that it does not have its own budget and it has to meet the salaries and other expenses on its own by earning Petty Supervision (PS) Charges on the value of the work executed by them. It has been facing the financial crunch since the programmes undertaken by it have come down drastically and due to the said reason, it has been deputing the staff to work in other Organisations. The 1st respondent-Corporation, however, states that there is no intention to deprive the petitioner from receiving the Gratuity, but it is helpless in releasing the amount to the petitioner due to lack of funds.
5. From the stand taken by the 1st respondent-Corporation it is not in dispute that it has an obligation to pay Gratuity and the petitioner is entitled for the same. However, the only reason being stated is that its financial position is not strong enough to meet the requirement of payment of Gratuity. In my considered view, the financial stringency or any other similar reason cannot be a relevant ground to deny the employees of their legal right to receive the Gratuity amount.
6. In BAKSHISH SINGH v. DARSHAN ENGINEERING
[1]
WORKS the Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar case arising out of the Payment of Gratuity Act, has clearly held that payment of Gratuity under the Act is obligatory. The Supreme Court went on to say that those establishments, which have no capacity to give their workmen the minimum conditions of service prescribed by the Statute, have no right to exist.
7. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it must be held that non-payment of Gratuity to the petitioner is unsustainable.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,78,295/-, but an amount of Rs.1,69,390/- alone was sanctioned vide proceedings No.E2/237/238/2857, dated 1.6.2012. According to him, about Rs.1,08,905/- remains to be sanctioned. He further states that even the sanctioned amount has not been fully paid.
9. Since the petitioner is disputing the quantum of amount, he is permitted to submit a representation to the 1st respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 1st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter. Inasmuch as some amount has been sanctioned as referred to above, the 1st respondent shall release the same within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to her claim.
10. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
11. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.4208 of 2012 and 27490 of 2013 and W.V.M.P.No.1063 of 2012 are dismissed as unnecessary.
JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 22.01.2014.
Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.3368 of 2012 22.01.2014 Msr
[1] (1994) 1 SCC 9