Madhya Pradesh High Court
Factory Manager vs Dayanand Chaubey on 1 July, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13368
1 WP-6573-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6573 of 2006
FACTORY MANAGER
Versus
DAYANAND CHAUBEY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Kumar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Vrinda Dixit appeared for respondents.
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"(i) That, the order impugned contained in Annexure P/1 and P/2 may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed.
(ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be given to the petitioner alongwith cost."
2. From perusal of the record, this Court finds that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/factory being aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby rejecting the appeal, the order dated 11.12.2005 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/4/2025 6:55:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13368 2 WP-6573-2006 Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 allowing the claim of the respondent No.1 to get gratuity of Rs.15,000/- alongwith interest Rs.12708/- i.e, total Rs.27,708/- on account of 08 years services rendered by him was affirmed. The objections raised by the petitioner/factory with regard to delayed filing of the case before the Controlling Authority, are necessary to be examined in the light of Section 7(2) of the Act of 1972, which clearly provides that whether an employee applies for gratuity or not, the employer is bound to determine his gratuity and inform him in writing. Furthermore, Section 7(3) of the Act of 1972 provides for the payment of gratuity within one month. The employee had given a notice for gratuity payment within the stipulated time on August 10, 1998 and in response thereof, the employer (petitioner), on September 4, 1998, replied that the employee was not eligible under the Group Gratuity Scheme but didn't clarify why the employee could not receive gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner with regard to delay in filing the case by the respondent No.1 was without any basis, thus, has no force.
3. This Court further finds that the employee had retired from service under another employer after completing 08 years of service in the petitioner/factory and the employer has not produced any document showing the employee's services were on contract basis. The employee resigned after completing 08 years of service and mere fact that the employee could not become a member of the LIC Gratuity Scheme, and thus, would not be eligible for gratuity under the Act, is not acceptable. Hence, the additional payment mentioned by the employer is not the gratuity.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/4/2025 6:55:36 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13368 3 WP-6573-2006
4. Section 4(1)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act specifies eligibility for gratuity after 05 years of service on resignation, and herein case, the employee's resignation letter dated December 22, 1997, is on record. It is thus clear that the employee (respondent No.1) is eligible to receive gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, based on 08 years of service rendered in the petitioner/institution. Since gratuity was not paid to the employee within the stipulated time, and there is a clear provision for interest in Section 8 of the Act for delayed payment of gratuity, the Controlling Authority has rightly passed by the impugned order dated 11.12.2006, allowing the claim of the respondent No.1 to the tune of Rs.27,708/- towards gratuity including interest thereupon and the same was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 28.10.2006 (Annexure P/1), which in view of this Court, appears to be appropriate therefore, doesn't warranty any interference. Accordingly, the present petition being sans merit is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/4/2025 6:55:36 PM