Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13035/2010 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13035 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
RAMSINGH
SOMABHAI BARIA & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
COLLECTOR
& 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MS MANSURI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
MS MONALI BHATT, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
MS MEGHA JANI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 22/12/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the directions to the respondent
no.1 Collector, Vadodara to immediately recover the gratuity amount
as per the certificates pending with him as shown in Annexure-‘E’ and
to proceed with the auction sale of the respondent no.2’s properties
attached by him, forthwith without any further delay and to make
payment of the same to the individual workman as per its record.
2. This
Court issued notice on 6th October 2010. Further orders
were passed on 15th and 23rd November 2010.
Ms.Megha Jani, the learned advocate appeared for the respondent no.2
and filed affidavit-in-reply on 20th December 2010.
Ms.Monali Bhatt, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent no.1
has produced on record the details regarding the amount collected
from the respondent no.2 Company and the amount disbursed to the
respective workman.
3. The
claim of the petitioners in the present petition is that, around 150
employees of the respondent no.2 Company including the petitioner
nos.1 and 2 have been retired from service but no amount of gratuity
has been paid to them. Hence, all of them approached the Controlling
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by separate
application and the authority, after hearing the parties, passed
separate orders directing the respondent no.2 employer to pay
gratuity. Despite these orders and despite the agreement by the
respondent no.2 employer with the petitioner no.3 Union with regard
to the amount of gratuity, immediately after retirement, the amount
has not been paid and hence the properties of the Company were sought
to be attached. It is averred in the petition that around Rs.1.5
crores are to be paid to the employees of the respondent no.2 Company
by way of gratuity.
4. Pursuant
to the notices issued by the respondent no.1, till this date the
respondent no.2 employer has deposited amount of Rs.1,53,44,702=00.
The said amount was disbursed and/or to be disbursed by the Mamlatdar
in favour of the respective employees. The detailed statements are
produced before the Court showing as to how much amount has been
disbursed. As per Annexure-‘A’, around 24 employees have already been
paid the gratuity amount with interest. As per Annexure-‘B’, 69
employees were paid only the principal amount. As per Annexure-‘C’,
19 cheques are ready, however, except two employees 17 employees have
still not collected their cheques. From these details, it clearly
appears that so far as the principal amount is concerned, the
respondent no.2 – employer has deposited the said amount with
the Collector. The question now is only with regard to the interest;
that too, 24 employees have already received their amount with
interest. The remaining employees are yet to receive the interest
amount. The respondent no.2 is, therefore, required to deposit the
interest amount with the Collector. If that amount is computed @ 10%
on the principal amount already deposited, it cannot be more than
Rs.15 lakhs.
5. Ms.Megha
Jani, the learned advocate for the respondent no.2 states that the
respondent no.2 would pay the said amount on or before 31st
January 2011.
6. If
this amount is deposited with the Collector, nothing remains in this
petition.
7. In
the above view of the matter, the Court hereby directs the respondent
no.2 to deposit the interest amount to be calculated at the rate of
10% per annum on the aforesaid amount, with the Collector on or
before 31st January 2011. On receipt of the said amount
from the respondent no.2 employer, the Mamlatdar shall disburse the
said amount amongst the employees in whose favour the principal
amount is already disbursed or the cheques for such disbursement are
kept ready.
8. With
this directions and since the amount stated in the recovery
certificates has already been paid by the employer, nothing remains
in this petition and hence, it is accordingly disposed of.
9. Liberty
is, however, reserved to the petitioners to revive the petition in
case the respondent no.2 will not deposit the interest amount on or
before 31st January 2011.
(K.A.Puj,
J.)
/moin
Top