HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.5750 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner-Company challenges the order dated 03.01.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Commissioner of Labour, Eluru Zone, West Godavari District, the first respondent, in P.G.A. Case No.4 of 2005 confirming the order dated 20.08.2004 passed by the Controlling Authority-cum- Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, the second respondent, in P.G. Case No.5 of 1998. This Court, by order dated 13.04.2006, granted interim stay of further proceedings including execution and recovery of amounts pursuant to the orders under challenge but thereafter, upon the vacate stay application filed by the third respondent, the said order was modified on 10.07.2007 whereby this Court permitted the third respondent to withdraw half of the amount already deposited by the petitioner-Company before the first respondent without furnishing security. The third respondent instituted P.G. Case No.5 of 1998 before the second respondent stating that he had rendered long and loyal service to the petitioner-Company stretching over 37 years but in spite of his retirement from service on 15.12.1997, he was not paid gratuity. The ostensible reason for the said denial was the pendency of criminal proceedings against the third respondent. The second respondent, by order dated 20.08.2004, directed the petitioner-Company to pay the gratuity amount due to the petitioner within a time frame. The second respondent took into account the acquittal of the third respondent in the criminal proceedings. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-Company filed an appeal in P.G.A. Case No.4 of 2005 before the first respondent. The first respondent, upon due consideration of the matter, confirmed the order of the second respondent and also awarded simple interest at the rate of 10% p.a. under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1972’) owing to the delay in payment of the gratuity. Hence, this Writ Petition. The contention advanced in the Writ Petition is with regard to the jurisdiction of first and second respondents to deal with the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Company contended that the third respondent, earning wages of Rs.10,000/- per month, would not be an ‘employee’ within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972 and therefore will not be covered by the said Act. It is however to be noticed that Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972 was amended in the year 1994, whereby the limitation with regard to the quantum of wages drawn by an employee was done away with. Therefore, irrespective of the salary drawn, an employee in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield etc. as per Section 2(e) is presently covered by the Act of 1972. The contention of the petitioner-Company that the third respondent drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month would not fall within the above definition cannot therefore be countenanced. The other submission made at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Company is that the first respondent ought not to have awarded interest in the appeal filed by it when the second respondent did not deem it fit to grant such relief. Had the interest awarded been traceable only to discretionary power, there would be merit in this contention. It is however to be noticed that Section 7(3A) of the Act of 1972 specifically states that if the gratuity payable is not paid within the period specified, being thirty days from the date it became payable, simple interest at a rate not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government for repayment of long term deposits shall be paid. In the light of this statutory obligation placed on the employer to pay interest upon delayed payment of gratuity, irrespective of the lapse on the part of the second respondent in that regard, the first respondent was within its power to make good the same and award interest. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Company on this count must therefore fail. Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the third respondent, basing on the material produced, stated that the rate of interest upon long term deposits during 1997-1998 ranged between 9% to 11%. That being so, award of 10% interest by the first respondent cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the first respondent does not brook interference. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. SANJAY KUMAR, J. Date:30.11.2010 usd