.^TBa>a». i -78 *iwwi'SSW ^JBST^TRTIcCT, y(Tl'(i<i<o, Rrtitiy tA.'fC^-^-5 ^0 • S~G'?/ w^zoo <s 3TI^<1i|5TR-li<b wnan^sTSRtiw 3IT^9T tRtp(licti'j61*d) ?^a78R^rftB3IT^9T PBTmONBR 1. Chhai Corpoj] Road,| Manat BUas^ Ram J^ about Irrigatit 2. The Gratuil Amblk^ 3. The Apj GratuiD Labourl Chhattj Writ Petition under Articl Cdntrolltns S.B. Hoa'ble Shri Dhiren 18.11.2008 Shri Ratan Pust\r, coufisel for the petitioner By fhis petition, the dated 29.9.2006 (Annexur under fhe Payment of Qra 1972"}, which was subsec Authority under ffae Act o: <W<lfrt41-1 ItlriT^' fs'cl •((yii^K ^aif^qan^sT tisgarh Infrastructure Development ration Lifiiited, Shastriya Chowk GE Raipur (CG) Through DMsional ;er, CIDC (Parivahan Prabhag) ur (GG) Versus itan Gupta, S/o Shri J.P. Gupta, Aged )9 years, Occupation : Ex. UDC, R/o >n Colony, Sitapur, Sarguja (CG) ntrolltng Aufhority Under Payment of Act, 1972-Cum-Labour Officer, tpur, District Sarguja (CG) pellate Authority Under the Payment of ^- Acct, 1972-Cum-Dy. Commissioner Oflfice of Commissioner of Labour, tsgarh Ralpur. |e 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia ra Mishra, J. petitioner has impugned the order ; P/4) of the ControUing Aufhority ;uity Act, 1972 (in short ''ttie Act of [uently confirmed by the Appellate 1972 vide order dated 24.01.2008 \> IC-78 '\^ ^5ET?qWT5RI, t»-rfl'<1<l<»,(€l«l'<'f3<< *ll*loi ^TT^P IfJ fC-2-3-^ f-Jo . 5~ 6 3 /' 3IT^?Tq?!P(ldij^) W^ 200% 3n^9T<RT R-fl<h nanan^sTspqiqi •^ CTarsR^ifer si^w a- (Annexiire P/6), by which| been held entitled to Rs. 17,772/- witli interest (g payable to the workman, the respondent No.l-workman has ^eceive an additional payment of ^ 10% per anniim fi^>m the date it was the petitioner. frdim 1^7/ The short question in\ is that a siim ofRs.1,10, workman along with otherl P/2 dated 2.4.2003 being| dues, clauns outstanduji! Corporation. The stand o|l Authority was that the assessed after considering since 22.3.1985 to 26.1.1: respondent No. 1 remauied days. The entries to this efl^c service book of the respond|ei to establish this contenti<)in However, the same was petitioner did not produce for establlshing fhe above opportunities for fhe same. nott thKlfd^H *1|t|d1'^'fc>c) •(Rfl<^['( ^ari^qsn^sT t?olved for adjudicatioii of (his petition '- was paid to the respondent No.l- |retiral dues vide receipt of Annexiire fhe full and final setttement of fhe ^g etc. towards the petitioner's the petitioner before the ControUini gt-atuity of the respondent No.l was bis unaufhorized absence flDm duties |1986, as between this period fhe ^bsent on various dates, totaling 221 ^sct were made by (he petitioner tn the i|ent No. 1 and the same was produced before the ControUing Authonly. considered on ttie ground that (he s]alary register or any other doci-iments |fact, despite it was afforded various »!< / '.i^ '*' 1 IC-78 3wT "yi«irt«,UTi1<fri<i<s,Rril^y'< *11*101 ^TT^"^.c.^^r?.'^.^.:..^?..?/. W^ 200% 31T$»TiRTfiRra> aaiT3II^?T(h*(i<<> 3IT^9T IR?P (Iicrf^(S) ffRnaR^rf^T3II^9T sertice ctf petiqoner Shri Ratan Pusty, petitioner subinits that a pruna facie evldence rej penod and in fhe absence the respondent No. 1, both the contention of (he paid to the respondent No. that, the tribunal has acknowledgement of the wherein he has accepted and final settlement and h^ no further claim against fh^ I have heard admission. From pen-isal of tl( AppeUate Authority, it is o} to the claim of the regarding deduction in establish absence of fhe r{ duly proved before the | concurrent finding recordet respon|dent pay|ment ti>i<<f»41i>fi*f«T^'(^i^l•(Ri+^i't <S SlRll 3II^?T |leamed counsel appearing for fhe book of fhe respondent No. 1 was fearding his absence in fhe aforesaid any evldence in rebuttal adduced by |the tribunals ought to have accepted and held that gratuity has been in accordance wifh law. Apart from lalso overlooked the unconditional |respondent No.l of Annexure P/2 (ihe payment towards gratuity as fuU is also undertaken that he shall make petitioner on any account In futiire. learr^ed counsel for the petitioner on ie impugned order passed by the >served fhat fhe petitioner in its reply No. 1 had not taken the defence of gratulty and no documents to sspondent No.l from the duties were ControUing Aufhority. The above I bv both the tribunals is a finding of "^ "^;. ^" kha3SIA. s .•^i.'w^^ ^ XtShjft-78 / 't'*fV: *ii*i«ia»TT^ ^®Er;:WITc;RI,u>-(fl'H<l6, Rrtl'My'( rf-^ i^.f..C.?M?..'y5;..-5.°/. 3n^?ig>ilc!-ii<h CTWsn^napTrai •<, \^ 3TT^?T (Rtp (ijclijEl.g) ^200% s^aTaR^aan^n ^i fact, which is based on the and therefore, in the consi does not reqiure interferen< So far as contentictn respondent No. 1 had waiv^d payment towards gratuil^, additional gratuity and th^ the respondent No.l in Q gratmty is a statutory Uapiility cannot be avoided by the some waiver made toy the r^ any substance, the sam q>rafc)41i iiinTtt'lsx3 <[uiwi'< ^3Tf^T3fI^?r evidence led by the respective parties, c/ |dered opinion of this Court, the same ^e'ina writ proceeding. of the petitioner that since the any further claim while receiving the r, he was estopped fi-om claiming Courts below ignored fhe conduct of MS regard, is concemed, payment of of the petitioner and tfae same petitioner Corporation on fhe basis of Sspondent No. 1-workman. For the aforesald re^sons, the instant petition is wifhout deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itselfand ^s accordingly, dismissed. Misbra Judge