^ c ^ 'p^~ SlngtoBmich Ki. IN 3LHEJHONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARHAT BItASPURfC.G.) WRITPETmON fS) NQ.2.Z^<3 QF 2009 PETITIONER ^ RESPQNDENTS ^' ggggigS?v'.,^:>- Cement Corporation of India Ltd. through its General Manager, Mandhar Cement Factory, P.0. Mandhar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. • The Appellate Authonty, under the Payruent of Gratuity Act, 1972, Raipur (C.G). i, 2. The Controlling Authority under the Payment Gratuity Act, 1972 (Assistant Labour Coramissioner, (Central)], Bilaspur(C.G.).. ' 3. Shri Sabru Prasad Sl'ia.rma, S/o. AlgtX), R/o. A/137, Ramkrishan Faramhansh Nagar, Kota Colony, RaipUrfC.G.) KE'I'ITION UNDER ARTIGLE226 QF.THE CONSTITUTION OF INE>IA ^^^ .^^ ESia :4 .-d WRiTPETmQN (S) N0,2270 QF 2009 Versus Cement Corporation of india Ltd. The Appellate Authority & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on 18th day of January, 2011) 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and,va!idity of the order dated 15.1.2009 passed by theAppellate Authority under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur, whereunder the appeai preferred by the petitioner agalnst theorder dated 24.9.2008 of the Controiling Authority and the ALC (C), Raipur (for short "the Controlling Authority") was dismissed. 2. The relevant facts in nutshell are the respondent No.3 employee workihg as Foreman (Mechanical) retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.2000. The respondent No.3 was paid gratuity to the tune of Rs.2,64,541/- on 8.1.2003 without interest. Thereafter, he filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (Central) Raipur, claiming interest of Rs. 91,875/- for the period of 20.9.2001 to 8.1.2003. The Contreliing Authority by order dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure P-2) heid that fhere was no reason to not make payment of gratuity in time and delay in 'l' paymentwas not on account of fault ofthe employee. Accordingly;, the Controiling Authority granted 10% interest on the gratuity amQuntjfijQml il»{ H)£ ISIII iN^ 2 , • the date of gratuity payable till it was actually paid i.e. from 1.10.2000 to 7.1.2003. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority with delay, which was condoned by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has considered all the facts of the case and held that the order passed by the Controliing Authority, Raipur, was perfectty lawful and the employee was entitled a sum of Rs. 817/- with gratuity amount with 10% simple interest per annum from 1.10.2000 tilt the payment was made, 4. The petitioner chaHenges the validity and iegatity of the impugned • order on the ground that the respondent No.3 employee was not entitled to the interest on delayed payment of gratuity amount. The delay was on account of the fact that the petitioner company was declared sick industry. The gratuity amountwas paid on its own, not on the basis of appiication made by the respondent No.3 employee. 5. The authorities below relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Collector Land Acqulsition, Anantnagand 'another v. Mst. Katiji and others (1987-I-LU-500) and the fact that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 19721s a piece of weifare legislatlon, held that the respondent employee was entitled to gratuity immediately on attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, the respondent employee isentitled to interest on the deiayed payment. 6. I have not noticed any irreguiarity, iliegality or perv.ersity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Thus, the petition though has been filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India; however, keeping in viewthe contents ofthe pelition, the petition may be heldas have Jseen filed under Section 227 of the Constitution invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 7. It is a trite law that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdictjon for issue of writ of certiorari or supervisory jyrisdiction under Article 227 of ^5 ,^'^*fe-s,N' y ^t^ '<s, 1 f ^^'- -^.\ -' ^- '^S9// "%^: ^ ashok 11 3 the Constitution of india, would not convert itself into a court of appeai and induige in reappreciation or evaiuation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formai or technical character. The Supreme Court, in Abdut Razak (D) Thr.LRs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagte & Others , observed as under: "21...There have been several other instances in which different Migh Courts have passed orders in exercise of power under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India disregarding the limitations identified and indicated by this Court in several decisions on the exercise of that power. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts would teep in view the limitations of certiorari jurisdiction/ supervisory jurlsdiction and refrain from deciding the writ petitions filed under Article 226 or petltions/applications filed under Articie 227 of the Constitution as if they are adjudicating- appeals filed agalnst the orders of the iower courts or other judicial/quasi-judicial bodies/authorities." The ratio laid down in the aforestated case has been referred with approval in Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patsi2. In the caseon hand, no jurisdictional error, infirmity or irregularity has been pointed out. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inciined to interfere with the impugned order which is lega!, just and proper. Appiying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case, no interference is warranted. Thus, the petition is meritless and is dismissed. No order asto costs. . i— Sd/- Satista K. Agnihotrijj Judge ' 201 OAIRSCW 1414 •'(2010)8300329 R