Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. As short question of law is involved, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one.

3. The appellant-writ petitioner, joined the services of the first respondent-Management of the TANCEM on 18.5.1966 and superannuated on 30.6.1991. His last drawn pay was Rs.2,335/- per mensem. Since the first respondent-Management of the TANCEM did not pay him the gratuity amount, he forwarded an application on 5.12.1991, claiming a sum of Rs.45,682.31 p. The first respondent-Management of the TANCEM in their turn, by letter dated 12.2.1992, sanctioned a sum of Rs.30,946.15p as gratuity. When the appellant-writ petitioner went to collect the amount, he was asked to receive only a sum of Rs.6,265.33 p. and on enquiry, he came to know that the Management deducted a sum of Rs.24,680.82p towards the wages paid by them between 1.5.1990 and 20.1.1991, when he was on long medical leave due to an accident while in service.

The appellant thereafter filed Application No.10 of 1992, before the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Labour--the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, claiming that the amount was illegally deducted by the first respondent-Management of the TANCEM. Before the second respondent-Controlling Authority, the first respondent-Management of the TANCEM, for the first time, made a counter statement that excess leave was treated as extraordinary leave on loss of pay and therefore, the excess amount paid to the appellant-employee (writ petitioner), was ordered to be recovered.

The second respondent-Controlling Authority, after hearing both the parties, computed the gratuity amount and passed favourable order on 24.8.1992, directing the first respondent-Management of the TANCEM to pay back a sum of RS.25,970.25p towards the balance gratuity within stipulated time.

Against the said order dated 24.8.1992 passed by the second respondent-Controlling Authority, the first respondent-Management of TANCEM preferred appeal before the third respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals)--the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the third respondent-appellate authority allowed the appeal, by order dated 13.1.1994 in P.G.(Appeal) Case No.48 of 1992, which has been confirmed by the learned single Judge in the impugned order dated 24.11.2000 passed in Writ Petition No.3189 of 1994 filed by the appellant-employee.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner (employee) submitted that the first respondent-Management of TANCEM accepted that the writ petitioner met with an accident while in service and his leave was regularised. It was also submitted that the first respondent, having accepted such contention, as per Sections 13 and 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the gratuity cannot be forfeited and adjusted and contracting out is also not permissible. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-employee further submitted that as per Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the first respondent-Management of TANCEM is not entitled to recover the amount, there being no loss or destruction of the property caused by the appellant-writ petitioner (employee).