IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 517 of 2002 (M/S) General Manager, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ..……… Petitioner Versus Regional Labour Commissioner and others ……… Respondents Mr. Anirudha Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Anirudha Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioner. List has been revised. The learned counsel for the respondents is not present. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act as well as of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the husband of respondent No.3- Smt. Savita Garg died and, she being the widow and legal heir, applied for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Certain objections were raised by the petitioner, namely, that the application has been filed belatedly and that the petitioner had been declared a sick industry under the Board of Industrial and Finance Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as ‘BIFR’) and, consequently, gratuity was not payable since the petitioner had become a sick industry. The objection of the petitioner was rejected and the Controlling authority, after considering the matter, awarded a sum of Rs.40,754/- alongwith 12% simple interest. Aggrieved by the said award, both the parties preferred the appeals, which were rejected by a common order and the order of 2 the Controlling authority was affirmed. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition is confined only to the limited relief of awarding 12% interest on the amount of gratuity. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apparently there was a delay at the behest of the opposite party in filing the claim application after a period of six years and, therefore, for such delay, the petitioner should not be saddled with the liability of interest for this period. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there were certain arrears against the opposite parties towards the payment of penal rent for occupying the quarter of the petitioner-company and such penal rent was liable to be adjusted from the amount payable. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Wazir Chand Vs. Union of India and others, (2001) 6 SCC 596 and another decision of this Court in the case of General Manager, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner, decided on 20th April, 2001 in Writ Petition No. 226 of 2001. Having considered the averments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable. No rules has been placed before the Court to indicate that the petitioner was entitled to adjust the penal rent against the death cum retirement dues including gratuity, etc. In the absence of any rules of this nature being framed by the petitioner which would have the force of law, this Court is of the opinion that the decision of Wazir Chand (Supra) is not applicable. The mere fact that the opposite parties has approached 3 the authority belatedly, does not mean that the petitioner would be entitled to retain the amount of gratuity that was legally payable by them upon the death of the husband of opposite party No.3. Gratuity is not a bounty but a legal right which is required to be paid immediately upon the supernuation of an employee or the death of the deceased. Admittedly, the petitioner denied the claim of the opposite party on the ground that it had become a sick industry and, therefore, was not entitled to pay the gratuity u/s 22 of the BIFR Act. This plea was rejected by the authority below. Consequently, interest was liable to be paid on belated payment. The authority was justified in imposing 12% simple interest which the Court does not find arbitrary nor discriminatory. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 19.04.2010 Shiv