<. IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.y WRIT PETITION N0. 22>S3 Qp 2006 PETITIONER ^' South Eastern Coatfields Limited, Through: The Chairman cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : ®-i^ ?MCT/ y ^y +yy ^'.^ <'<t<^"' ^ <3%> The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madhhatal, Jabalpur (M.P.). The Controlling Authority under the Payment Gratuity Artr 1972, Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central), Shahdol (M.P.). 3. Ajit Kumar, Ex. C.M.E. Type V/2, OfRcers Colony Jamuna and Kotma of S.E.C.L. Post Jamuna, District Anuppur (M.P.). f • • -^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QL_THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT_IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI ETC. XI-HC-78 N1*1^1 ShHlvh '3S[ -tll-qiciq, ^Tfty'KS, (qcllUy — . .^J .P Y.V».• .-(>J^$/°i •»<'^t •'+ • »• »4 »»'*-»9 *-**»* ^ 200 3ll^<l w*> (ija(^s|<<eT) sn^rqirf^TNi cTman^TSffira? ?^ITWHf?cT3n^T 23.6.2006 thtt Shri P.5. Koshy, Advocate Heard on admission. By this petition the petitiotier and correctness of order datetl respondent No.2-Controlling Autl^ority been directed to pay the gratuity tune of Rs.3,50,000/- with 9% dated 27.4.2006 (Annexwe P-fl] whereby the Appellate Authorf|y Controliing Authority directed of 9%. This petition can be dispt>sed without giving notice to responde(it pending against- respondent No.: 25.5.2006 and the Disciplinary 25% of gratuity amount payable of notice will further delay the However, it is made clear that if order, then he will be at iiberty filing an interlocutory application. Necessary facts for dispoi No.3 was working in the petitionerj- fpr the petitioner. qii<iF<-i<fl"< ii*<nT^"tet^l'<Ri^i< ^>3lf^ir3I1^?T has questioned the legality, pr'opriety 12.1.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by whereby the petitioner herein has amount to respondent No.3 herein to the iimple interest on it and also the order ) passed by the Appellote Authority after confirming the order of the simple interest be paid © 10% instead of at the admission stage itself No.3 because the enquiry, vuhich was |, has been decided vide order dofed A^jthority has ordered for forfeiture of the petitioner and therefore, issuance p|ayment of gratuity to respondent No.3. r^spondent No.3 is not satisfied with this l^o request for recdlling of this order by (ai of this petition are that respondent zr^company as Sub Area AAanager, Jamuna [-HC-78 3^ 'fiww^, ®Tfl«'is,RiMitfy *<1*1WI Sh*11<h ^[ 200 3ii^<i 4a<h (lyitfliS'T) sn^iTwR-ii* craTsn^TshKicti CTaw^rfN'sn^T —2-. Kotma Area and he demitt'ed t|ie office after dttaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2004. It the services of respondent N(^ biscipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 working as Area Safety Offic^r during the period 2000 to 2(X)3 commift'ed misconduct and theref^re, a charge sheet dated 25.8.2003 was issued to him on 20.11.2004, as on| lead distance Amadan/Bari'arai td 25.5.2006 whereby a penaH-y of vide impugned order Annexure P-j gratuity ctmount to reapondent N<^ interest be paid to the petitioner under intimcrt'ion to the controllin^ °bi<if<'i<fl-< iiiCTT^"teiA'<R]<^i< ^)3lf^IT3l1^T has been mentioned in the petition that .3 are governed by Service Conduct (Annexure P-3). Respondent No.3 while account of deviation in measurement of Sovinda C.ht.P. by respondent No.3 the petitioner-company suffered a lo^s of Rs.14,97,226.93 paise towards less recovery of surface transport ^harges. Now that enquiry has been completed and the disciplinary 4rt'hority has passed final order doted forfeiture of 25% of gratuity ctmount payable to respondent No.3 has ^een passed, However, respondent No.2 7 passed the order for payment of full .3 and it was further directed thot 9% within 30 doys from the date of order authority. Same was confirmed by the appellate authority and the intere^t was modified from 9% to 10%. ( Learned counsel forthe petftioner drawBthe attention of the Court towards the Chapter-IVOf S'-rv(ce Conduct bisGipline & Appeal Ruies, 1978 and as per Rule 27.1 (d) of t^e Rules, minor penalty of recovery from pay or gratuity of the whole of or |iart' of any pecuniary loss caused to the company by negligence or breach 4f orders or trust can be imposed. ftuie Xt-HC-78 55?^iraT?ra', ?9ifltf'l6,Ri(rliyy HlHWf sb*ll<h ^ 200 3<i^i w<o (ytg6!^) sn^TwR-<i+ ?raT3n^?rsh*i n^ .-, v~^' ^ ! , oshan/- ^^ -^ CT<IWHf?(T3TI^T *i'iil'fi4)^ t<iiidTffr^i<f) <Rf^i< ^is'il^iran^r 34.3 envisages thfft durjng the p^ndency of the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority may wi'^hhoid payment of gratuity, for ordering the recovery fr-om gratuity of t(ie whole or parT of any pecuniary loss caused to the company. Now, as has been mentionecf earlier' that the final order has aiready been passed whereby the disciplin ^ry author'ity has ordered for forfeiture of 25% of grcrt-uity amount payajile to responden-t No.3, therefore, the order impugned is liabte to be mo^ified to the extent that 75% amount of gratuity with interest be paid •^o respondent No.3 and r'emaining 25% amount of gratuity should not b stdnds forfeited as per order d<rt|ed 25.5.2006. Of cowse, if respondent No.3 avail any iegal remedy avcil other order is passed modjfying tl' 5848/06 afso stand disposed of. Certifiedcopyasper rules. p paid to respondent No.3, as the same hble to him and in that remedy if any le penaity, then he will be entjtted to the fruits of that order. It is made clear that remai^iing 25% of amount shail remain with the re^pondent appellate cuthority utti'il the order passed by the discipljnary authority aftains jts finality. With the directions afores^id, the petition stcnds disposed of. Consequently, ;W.(W.)P. 1^0.2258/06 and 1.A. No.5902/06 <& Scil- L.C.Bhsaoo Judse