C.W.P. No.7847 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.7847 of 1988 Date of Decision:01.10.2008 M/s Western Electric and Scientific Works, Ambala .....Petitioner Vs. The Joint Labour Commissioner, Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by M/s Western Electric and Scientific Works, Ambala Cantt., under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned orders dated 6.6.1988 Annexure P.6 and 31.8.1988 Annexure P.7 and for dismissing the application filed by respondent No.3- Jag Devi widow of Om Prakash- deceased under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The facts giving rise to this petition are that Om Parkash, husband of the respondent- Jag Devi was employed as Fitter with the petitioner- Management on 13.10.1982. Although he reported for duties but did not do any work. This fact was marked on his Attendance Card, which he later on removed in the day. On questioning about the act of removal of the Attendance Card, the deceased- workman misbehaved with an official of the petitioner- Management. From 14.10.1982 onwards, he did not report for duties. The petitioner- Management wrote several registered letters asking him to resume his duties, but in vain. Since he absented from duties without leave, he was charge-sheeted and a copy of the charge-sheet was sent to him and the same was returned undelivered. He instead of sending C.W.P. No.7847 of 1988 -2- reply to the charge-sheet and facing the inquiry made a complaint to the Labour-Cum-Reconciliation Officer, Ambala Cantt., to the effect that the petitioner- Management is harassing him. On receipt of such complaint, the petitioner- Management appeared before the Labour-cum-Reconciliation Officer, Ambala denying the allegations. Ultimately, the deceased- workman filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `the Act') before the Labour Court, Faridabad Camp at Ambala Cantt., alleging that his services have been terminated by the petitioner- Management without paying any compensation. He compromised the matter and withdrew his application after receiving Rs.850/- from the petitioner- Management. Keeping in view the amicable settlement between the parties, the Labour Court passed an order dated 7.9.1987 that the deceased- workman will be paid Rs.850/- in lieu of his total claim. This amount has already been paid to the deceased- workman. Thereafter, he filed an application before respondent No.2 under Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which was accepted by the Controlling Authority without appreciating the facts and law. As such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as per the provisions embodied in this petition. None has come forward to argue this petition on behalf of the respondent- deceased workman. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, besides perusing the findings returned in the impugned orders. Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner eloquently urged that in the instant case, the deceased- workman has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 4 of the Payment of the C.W.P. No.7847 of 1988 -3- Gratuity Act, 1972 and that being so, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. The learned Controlling Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Ambala has observed in order dated 6.6.1988 (Annexure P.6) as under:- “9. From the above case law I have no reason to dis-allow this application. The gratuity is very much payable in the case of retrenchment. As per the Act, Rs.5711.50 is due to the applicant as gratuity. The deceased workman had a long tenure of service with the respondent but still they denied the terminal benefits as per the Act to him. The authorised representative of the applicant has prayed that 12% interest be granted on the basis of case law mentioned below:- 1987-4-SLR-789 10. In view of the above, the respondents are also directed to pay 12% simple interest on the awarded amount from the date of retrenchment of the deceased workman upto the date of payment of the awarded amount. Admittedly, the workman has breathed his last. Even at the time of filing of this petition, he was no more in this world and his widow has been arrayed as a respondent. Obviously, no fault can be found with the above observations rendered by the Controlling Authority. As per order dated 8.9.1988 passed C.W.P. No.7847 of 1988 -4- by the Division Bench of this Court in this petition, the amount in question was directed to be paid on furnishing security to the satisfaction of respondent No.2. A close examination of the above observations would reveal that there is nothing wrong therewith, as would require interference. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with order dated 6.6.1988 (Annexure P.6) went up in appeal which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.8.1988 (Annexure P.7) with the following observations:- “I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and have applied my mind to the material brought on record before me as well as before the court below. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that loss of lien amounts to resignation has no force. As a matter of fact, the order of the court below that loss of lien amounts to retrenchment is based on legal principles and which I fully endorse. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal on this short ground. Since the respondent workman is not present before me I pass no order as to costs.” Ostensibly, the above observations too call for no interference. In the result, I do not consider it proper to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. October 01, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE