IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1344 (MS) OF 2008 Krishan Chandra Garg ……..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……..Respondents. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 4. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 13 th August, 2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.6.2008, whereby the recovery of the award passed by the Labour Court under section 33-C has been withdrawn. The Labour Court has granted the arrears of salary w.e.f. 11.4.1993 to 24.4.1995 for the reasons that the gratuity was not paid to him applying the Clause LL(8) of the Standing Order. for the convenience, LL(8) is quoted below: “(A) The management shall pay the amount of gratuity to a retiring workman as may be found due to him by the management of receipt of a clearance slip from the workman in respect of articles of stores; advance etc. (B) The retiring workman shall be deemed to be in service and shall be entitled to full wages and all fringe benefits as long as the employer does not tender the amount of gratuity to him.” 2. Clause (A) of LL (8) provides that amount of gratuity to retiring workman as may be found due shall be paid on receipt of clearance slip from the workman. Clause (B) of LL (8) provides that retiring workman shall be deemed to be in service and shall be entitled to full wages and of fringe benefits as long as the employer does not tender the amount of gratuity to him. 3. The object of the clause (B) is the ensure the timely payment of gratuity to the retiring employee. Its application shall depend, if there is total failure or negligence on the part of the employer. The Clause (A) of LL (8) provides that gratuity shall be paid after receipt of the clearance from the workman. It is not disputed that the workman at the time of retirement was incharge of store, therefore, it is incumbent upon the workman to have filed No Dues Certificate i.e. Clearance Slip of articles of stores and advance etc. 4. While dealing this aspect as to whether the Clearness Slip was submitted by the Workman, there is no finding as to whether at any time, regarding the payment of gratuity, the clearance slip was submitted or not. In the statement of witness, it has come that there is no stock in store even then in order to fulfil the requirement of Clause (A), the workman was liable to submit No Dues Certificate i.e. Clearance Slip and on receipt thereof, the burden shifts upon the employer to immediately pay the gratuity and if it is not paid, then the provisions of Clause (B) is attracted in this case. 5. As held above, no clearance slip was submitted by the Workman, therefore, payment of gratuity could not be made and as such, the provisions of Clause (B) cannot be attracted in this case as there is lack on the part of the workman himself as he did not submit clearance Certificate and even no statement has been made as on what date the clearance slip has been submitted therefore, the Labour Court fell into error in applying Clause (B) and directing the payment for two years’ salary to the workman, thus the order of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that the gratuity has been fully paid after the award was made, though still the clearance slip has not been submitted. Therefore, withdrawal of the recovery certificate is correct. 7. For the reasons recorded, withdrawal of the recovery certificate is held to be justified. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 13.8.2008 Rathour