Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: cmss in Rajesh Bajaj vs Union Of India & Ors. on 17 December, 2021Matching Fragments
1. This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned letter dated 27th September, 2021, which was issued by Respondent No.2 - Central Medical Services Society (hereinafter "CMSS"), vide which CMSS claimed that gratuity is not payable to the Petitioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter "the Act") as the Petitioner has not completed five years of service since the Act became applicable to CMSS on 27th April 2015. The case of the Petitioner is that he completed 5 years of service with CMSS as General Manager (Logistic & Supply Chain). He joined the CMSS on 13th February, 2014 and was employed with them till 31st March, 2019. Thus, he is entitled to payment of gratuity.
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:20.12.2021 16:57:56
3. Mr. Nigam, ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been repeatedly making representations to CMSS seeking the payment of gratuity. However, the same were being rejected on one ground or the other. Reply to the RTI filed by the Petitioner reveals that similarly placed employees have been paid the gratuity amount.
4. Ld. Counsel further vehemently contends that the Petitioner need not approach the Controlling Authority under the Act and the present writ petition would be maintainable as there is a violation of Petitioner's "right to equality" enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India since he is being discriminated against from other employees by CMSS. He further submits that the Controlling Authority under the Act does not have jurisdiction to deal with all the issues sought to be raised by the Petitioner.
5. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Respondent No.2 - CMSS submits that alternative remedy is available to the Petitioner and he is free to approach the Controlling Authority.
6. A perusal of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, shows that under Section 7, the Controlling Authority would determine as to whether the gratuity amount is payable and the quantum payable. Section 7(4)(a) also makes it clear that even the admissibility of the claim is in the domain of the Controlling Authority. The Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab v. Labour Court Jullunder and Ors. AIR 1979 SC 1981 while analysing the scheme of the Act observed: