Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Shri S. Bhaskar Rao on 1 November, 2023
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:26519
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPL No. 75 of 2023
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department School
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
(Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before The Learned
Controlling Authority And Office Of The Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Durg But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No.
1 Herein As It Is Govt. Through The Secretary Of Concerned
Department.)
2. The District Education Officer, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri S. Bhaskar Rao, S/o Late Shri S. Narayan,
R/o. Steel Nagar, Camp-1, Bhilai, Post Supela, District Durg.
(Non Applicant No. 1)
2. The President/secretary, Pravas Andhra Pathshala Samiti, Steel
Nagar, Camp -1, Bhilai District Durg. (Non Applicant No. 2)
3. The Controlling Authority, Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act,
1972 Office Of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg District
Durg Chahttisgarh.
---- Respondents
For State/Petitioner : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Dy. A.G. For Res. No. 1 : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate.
For Res. No. 2 : Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 01.11.2023
1. The petitioner/State has preferred the instant Writ Petition (L) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Gratuity Claim Case No. 65/PGA/D.G./2015, (Shri S. Bhaskar Rao Vs. District Education Officer & another) by which the Controlling Authority has directed the petitioners as well as respondent No. Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:26519 Page 2 of 4 2 to pay sum of Rs. 10 lacs towards the gratuity of respondent No. 1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the simple interest @ 15% shall carry on the said amount.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Government of Chhattisgarh has already taken a decision to pay gratuity to teachers of aided institutions receiving grant in aid from the State Government retire after 1st April, 2013. He would further submit that the petitioner has not exhausted remedy available to it under the statute Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and would draw attention of this court towards Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which reads as under.
"Section 7(7)- Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf: Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days:
[Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub-section (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount."
3. From bare perusal of the legal position, it is quite vivid that before filing an appeal it is mandatory on the part of the appellant to deposit the amount so assessed by the controlling authority and without depositing the amount the appeal is not maintainable.
4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition without depositing the amount as ordered by the controlling authority and even the petitioner has not exhausted remedy of filing of an appeal, therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court in case of W.P.(227) No. 525 of Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:26519 Page 3 of 4 2014 (Mahabir Shiksha Prasar Samiti Vs. Shri S.K. Sawarkar & others) and other connected matters (decided on 03.09.2014), the writ petition is not maintainable. Hon'ble the Division Bench has held at paragraph 9 to 11 as under:
"9. A bare perusal of the scheme reveals that in the event of a dispute with regard to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee or even the admissibility of any claim whatsoever towards gratuity, the employer cannot retain unto himself the final authority and decision in the matter. The adjudicatory authority is the controlling authority. If an appeal is to be preferred the amount determined by the controlling authority is required to be deposited as a pre- condition. If the argument made on behalf of the petitioners be accepted, the amount of pre-deposit has to be confined to the self assessed amount rendering the adjudication by the controlling authority irrelevant but yet subject to the appellate jurisdiction. The employer thus shall have the benefit of self assessment even after adjudication of liability continuing to deprive the employee for whose benefit the legislation was enacted. Such an interpretation in our opinion shall be doing complete violence to the statutory scheme. The use of the word "deposit" does not have a different meaning under sub- section (4) (a) and (d). In the former, it talks of deposit on self-assessment. In the latter it is the amount deposited including excess amount after adjudication in excess of the self assessed amount by the controlling authority.
10. Any interpretation of a statutory provision leading to absurdity must be avoided particularly when the statute is a beneficial legislation. To hold that the pre-deposit for appeal has to be determined on basis of the self assessment made by the employer against which no appeal lies, and that the order of the Controlling Authority upon the same against which appeal lies shall be irrelevant in part for the purpose of the appeal, is an absurd interpretation which has to be avoided.
11. In (2001) 3 LLN692 (Mad) (Christian Medical College and Hospital v. Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), it was held as follows:-
The contention that the second proviso to S. 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act refers to sub-r. (4) which means that the admitted amount alone is required to be deposited under sub-s. 4 (9) of S. 7 and not the disputed liability would have deserved acceptance provided the second proviso to sub-s. (7) of S. 7 had confined itself to cl. (a) of sub-s. (4), but the entire sub-s. (4) if S.7 is included in the proviso. In other words, the admitted amount of the amount adjudicated or whatever the amount as may be Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:26519 Page 4 of 4 directed to be deposited or ordered to be paid by the controlling authority is required to be deposited by, the employer in terms of the second proviso to sub-s. (7) of S.
7. There is no justification or warrant to restrict the meaning of the, second proviso to the admitted liability alone.
The Legislature intended to restrict the pre-deposit to cl.
(a) of sub-s. (4) of S. 7, then it would have been provided that the required amount to be deposited under cl. (a) of sub-s. (4). This is not the statutory provision. Further, if such a contention is to be accepted, the object of legislation, which has provided for a mandatory provisions to deposit the amount, as determined by the controlling authority before filing an appeal, would be defeated. The intention and object of the legislation is also very clear and the second proviso has been introduced with the object of making predeposit of the amount determined by the controlling authority as prerequisite under sub-s. (7) of S.
7. Further, in terms of cl. (a) of sub-s. (4) of S.7 the deposit is a voluntary deposit by the employer at the threshold, where the employer comes forward with a deposit. Such is not the contingency provided for in respect of other clauses in sub-s. (4) of S. 7 of the Act."
5. Since the petitioner has not deposited the amount and has not exhausted the remedy of appeal, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, the liberty is granted to the petitioner/State to file an appeal against the impugned order dated 02.08.2017 within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the appellate authority after complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on merit without insisting for delay as this Court has already condoned the delay.
6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun