Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Principal Vision Valley School ... on 27 July, 2021
Author: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Bench: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPMS No.1427 of 2021
With
WPMS No.1428 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via Video Conferencing) Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary and Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
In Writ Petition No.1427 of 2021 (S/S), the petitioner has put a challenge to the order dated 08.04.2021, which was rendered in PGA Case No.64 of 2020, Amit Kumar Mishra vs. Principal Vision Valley School Kundeshwari Road, Chaitimod, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, as passed by the Controlling Authority, while exercising his powers under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. As a consequence thereto, the Controlling Authority has determined the arrears of gratuity payable to the private respondents to the tune of Rs.1,64,420/- and after adding the statutory interest payable under Section 7(3)(A) and additional amount of Rs.75,861/- has been directed to be remitted i.e. the total liability, which has been harnessed upon the petitioner, has been determined to be Rs.2,40,281/-.
In Writ Petition No.1428 of 2021 (S/S), the petitioner has yet again put a challenge to the order of 08.04.2021 passed by the Controlling Authority in PGA Case No.65 of 2020, Sandeep Bhatt vs. Principal Vision Valley School Kundeshwari Road, Chaitimod, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the arrears of gratuity, which has been determined to be made payable by the petitioner has been assessed to be Rs.1,08,990/- along with statutory interest under Section 7(3) (A) of the Act, which has been determined as to be Rs.78,056/- totalling to Rs.1,77,046/-, which has been directed to be made payable by the petitioner to the private respondents.
Consequent to the impugned orders, passed in two respective cases, determining the gratuity amount and the interest payable on it by the petitioner, the consequential order of recovery, has been issued on 07.07.2021, respectively in both cases while exercising the powers under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity. The proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act, are statutory in nature and since its determination has been made by the Controlling Authority and as the petitioner disputes the manner in which the computation has been made, that itself would require a factual appreciation of the controversy and the modalities which were adopted by the Controlling Authority for determining the gratuity amount and interest on it.
In that eventualities the impugned orders, which are under challenge in the two writ petitions would be appealable under Sub Section (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
In view of the aforesaid reasoning, that since the order under challenge is disputed, on the question of facts pertaining to the modalities of determination of quantification of the gratuity payable, it would be appealable under Sub Section (7) of Section 7 of the Act.
Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Since the petitioner has got a statutory remedy of appeal under Sub Section (7) of Section 7 of the Act.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 27.07.2021 Arti