Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAG JEEVAN PRASAD GUPTA versus LABOUR COURT, GORAKHPUR AND ANR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jag Jeevan Prasad Gupta v. Labour Court, Gorakhpur And Anr - WRIT - C No. 8077 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 18231 (28 October 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 22

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.  8077 Of 1999.

Jag Jeevan Prasad Gupta, Gorakhpur. ... Petitioner.

      Versus

Labour Court, Gorakhpur and another.   . ...  Opp. Parties.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated  03.11.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U. P. Gorakhpur in Misc. Case nos. 42 of 1991 and 45 of 1992.

The petitioner was working as a Boiler Attendant in the respondent establishment and was due to retire in the month of October 1987, but was allowed to continue in service up to April, 1989 by way of extension.  However, he was asked to leave on 30.4.1989.  Admittedly, he was occupying a residential quarter provided by the respondent.  By means of two applications, petitioner claimed salary for the period of May, 1989 to December, 1991 on the ground that he was not paid gratuity on the date of retirement which was due and thus, in view of Clause-11 of the Standing Order, his services was deemed to be continued and was entitled for full wages and all fringed benefits.  Both the applications have been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner could not vacate the quarter and has obtained Clearance Slip on 04.1.1991 and also moved application on 17.9.1991 for payment of gratuity, in which, it was also submitted that the quarter has been vacated.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gratuity was not paid to the petitioner, therefore, in view of Clause-11 of the Standing Order, he was deemed to be in service and shall be entitled for full wages and all fringed benefits.  Thus, his claim for salary for the period of May, 1989 to December, 1991 should be allowed.  Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that despite offer being made, petitioner could not receive the gratuity, therefore, vide letter dated 02.7.1991, amount of gratuity was deposited with the Controlling Authority. Thereafter petitioner moved application on 17.9.1991 before the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity, in which, it was stated that after giving the possession of the quarter, Clearance Slip was obtained on 04.1.1991 and on the basis of the said application, vide order dated 31.10.1991, amount of gratuity was paid to the petitioner.  Application for deposit of gratuity dated 02.7.1991, application dated 17.9.1991 moved by the petitioner and order dated 31.10.1991 passed by the Controller are Annexure CA-4, 5 and 6.  He submitted that since the possession of the residential quarter was not given by the petitioner to the management and Clearance Slip was not obtained in view of Clause-11 of the Standing Orders, he was not deemed to be in service after the date of retirement and shall not be entitled for any wages.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order and the other documents filed alongwith the writ petition and Counter-affidavit.

Clause-11 of the Standing Order referred in para-3 of the writ petition, reads as follows:-

"The Management shall pay the amount of gratuity to a retiring workman as may be found due to him by the management on receipt of a clearance slip from the workman in respect of Articles of Stores, advances, etc. and the workman shall simultaneously vacate his quarter and handover its possession to the management.  The retiring workman shall be deemed   to be in service and shall be entitled to full wages and all fringed benefits as long as the employer does not tender the due amount of gratuity to him but receipt of payment of gratuity found due by the employer shall not prejudice the right of workman to raise a dispute about it, if he considers the amount disputable even on vacation of the quarter and exit from the service.

If a workman does not vacate his quarter and handover its possession to the management on the date of retirement despite tendering the amount of gratuity, he shall not be deemed in service after the date of retirement."

As per Clause-11, workman is deemed to be in service and entitled for full wages and all fringed benefits after the retirement so long the employer does not tender the due amount of gratuity to him.  It says that the management shall pay the amount of gratuity to a retiring workman as may be found due to him by the management on receipt of a clearance slip from the workman in respect of Articles of Stores, advances, etc. and the workman shall simultaneously vacate his quarter and handover its possession to the management.  Clause-11 further says that if a workman does not vacate his quarter and handover its possession to the management on the date of retirement despite tendering the amount of gratuity, he shall not be deemed to be in service after the date of retirement.  In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner could not vacate the quarter and has not handed over the possession to the management on the date of retirement and when he has handed over the possession of the quarter, Clearance Slip was issued on 04.9.1991.  Thus, as per the Clause-11 referred hereinabove, the management was not liable for the payment of gratuity on the date of retirement.  It also appears that despite the petitioner being called by the management to receive the payment of gratuity, same was not received and thus, it was deposited with the Controlling Authority on 02.7.1991, which was subsequently received by the petitioner after moving the application on 17.9.1991.  In the application-dated 1.7.1991, petitioner categorically stated that after handing over the possession of the quarter, Clearance Slip was obtained on 04.1.1991.  In this view of the matter and as per Clause-11, petitioner cannot be considered to be in service after the date of retirement, thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any wages.

In the result, writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt:28.10.2006.

MZ/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.