IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13742 of 1997 Between: The National Co-operative Development Corporation, rep. by its Dy. Regional Director at Hyderabad (Viz.Shri MirAbid Ali aged about 43 yearsS/o Late Liakat Ali), 2nd Floor, HACA Bhawan, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 Ass. Labour Commissioner (C)-I, O/o RIC (C), ATI Campus, Hyderabad-500 007; 2 H.Hemnath Rao, S/o Shri Malkaji Rao, H.No.12-11-1018, Warasiguda, Secunderabad-500 061 ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.SURYANARAYANA Counsel for respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr William Burra The Court made the following : O R D E R: This is a frivolous and vexatious piece of litigation indulged in by no less an organization than the Government of India Corporation. The facts are not in dispute. Respondent No.2, who joined the petitioner-Corporation as Assistant Director on 03-12-1984, resigned from the services of the petitioner-Corporation with effect from 31-03-1995. On 18-10-1996, respondent No.2 made a representation for payment of gratuity, which he is entitled to receive under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short “the Act”). The said request was denied by the petitioner-Corporation on the ground that when an employee resigns on his own volition, he is not entitled for payment of gratuity under the National Cooperative Development Corporation (Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity) Rules, 1970. Respondent No.2 was, therefore, constrained to approach respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Act. After hearing both the parties, respondent No.1, by its order dated 30-05-1997, allowed the said application of respondent No.2 by overruling the objection of the petitioner that respondent No.2 is not entitled to receive gratuity as per its Rules as he resigned on his own. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Sri C.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not dispute that the petitioner-Corporation falls within the definition of “employer” under Section 2(f) of the Act. He also did not dispute that Section 4(1) of the Act provides for payment of gratuity on occurrence of one of the three events and retirement or resignation is one such event envisaged by the said Act. The only stand taken by the petitioner, as noted above, is that its Rules do not envisage payment of such gratuity. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 being a plenary legislation made by the Parliament, it is not permissible for the petitioner-Corporation to frame a rule contrary to the law made by the Parliament and such a rule is not enforceable. It is most unfortunate that the petitioner, which, on its own pleading in the affidavit, is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, should indulge in activities, which are detrimental to its employees and deny them what the law provides for. The petitioner instead of acting as a model employer has conducted itself in the manner, which is prejudicial to the interests of respondent No.2 by indulging in needless litigation. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.1. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. A perusal of the proceeding sheet shows that on 01-07-1997, this Court granted interim order in favour of the petitioner on condition of its depositing the entire amount within two weeks. At the hearing, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount deposited by the petitioner is not permitted to be withdrawn by respondent No.2. Thus, for more than 11 years, respondent No.2 is denied gratuity, which is legitimately due to him under the provisions of the Act. I, therefore, feel that the interests of justice would be met if respondent No.2 is compensated by directing the petitioner to pay interest @12% per annum on the amount due to the petitioner in addition to the statutory interest payable on the gratuity amount. Ordered accordingly. For indulging in vexatious litigation, a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) is imposed as costs on the petitioner, which shall be payable to respondent No.2 along with the gratuity amount. The petitioner-Corporation shall pay the above mentioned amounts, within a period of four weeks from today. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st November, 2008 vrn