IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11377 of 2005 THE CHAIRMAN & Managing Director, Syndicate Bank, Head Office-Manipal, Karnataka State, Pin Code No. 576 104 ........... Opposite party/Appellant/Petitioner. Versus 1. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)-cum-Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Maurya Lok Complex, Second Floor, Block ‘A’, P.O. – G.P.O.,Police Station- Kotwali, Patna-800 001 ....Respondent Ist Set. 2. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna-cum- Controlling Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act, Maurya Lok Complex, Second Floor, Block- ‘A’, P.O. – G.P.O., Police Station- Kotwali, Patna-800 001 . ...... Respondent 2nd Set....... Respondent 2nd Set. 3. Smt. Usha Singh, wife of late Chandra Mohan Prasad Singh, Ex- Pigmi Agent (Bhagwanpur Branch), Syndicate Bank, C/o Shri S.N. Singh, 23-Chhoti Kalyani Road, Muzaffarpur, Police Station- Bhagwanpur, P.O. Bhagwanpur, District Muzaffarpur ........Applicant....Respondent.....Respondent. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent nos.1 and 2 : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate. C.G.C. For respondent no.3. Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Advocate. Mr. Dilip Kumar, Advocate. 8 14.2.2011 In compliance of order dated 28.1.2011 passed by this Court, Smt. Usha Singh (respondent no.3) is physically present in the court and has been duly identified by her lawyer. I.A. No. 10287 of 2010 at flag ‘A’ has been jointly filed by the petitioner as also by respondent no.3 stating therein that the matter has been compromised between them out side the court and in the light of the compromise, the writ petition may be disposed of. Therefore, the aforesaid interlocutory application as also the main writ petition are being taken up jointly for final disposal. By an order dated 11.1.2005 passed by the Controlling Authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only), the Assistant Labour 2 Commissioner (Central) Patna, has accepted the claim raised by respondent no.3 under the provisions of the Act and the employer- petitioner herein was directed to make payment of Rs. 1, 75,614/- to the respondent no.3 with interest @ 10% for delayed payment. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid original order vide Annexure-3 preferred an appeal giving rise to case no. 36/8/2005- R.L.C./Appeal, which was finally heard and dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 11.8.2005 (Annexure-3A). It further appears that in the light of the original order dated 11.1.2005 (Annexure-3), the petitioner had already deposited Rs. 1,75,614/- with the appellate authority and as per the appellate order the interest was also required to be deposited by the employer ie. the petitioner within 30 days. Thereafter Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Patna filed a certificate case before the Certificate Officer for realization of the balance amount from the employer ie. the petitioner. It is common case of the employer-petitioner and respondent no.3 that the matter has amicably been resolved between them out side the court , probably in the light of certain judicial pronouncement made by the Apex Court and it has been agreed upon by them that respondent no.3 shall be entitled to receive payment of a package to the tune of Rs. 1,29,123/- only and she will not make claim for any further amount. In response to a question of this Court, Respondent no. 3 , who is present in the court, has also accepted that out of her free will, she has entered into the aforesaid compromise and as such an amount of Rs. 1,29,123/- has been received / retained by her from the employer - petitioner and balance 3 amount of Rs. 46,691/- has been returned to the petitioner Bank and no dispute remains for adjudication between the parties. Mr. Sarvdeo Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 has fairly submitted that since dispute has been resolved amicably between the petitioner and respondent no.3, therefore, official respondents have no objection to the aforesaid resolution of the dispute and this writ petition may be accordingly disposed of. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 as also learned counsel for respondent no.3, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the employer- petitioner and respondent no.3. The orders contained in Annexure-3 and 3A stand modified accordingly. Interlocutory application as also the main writ application stand disposed of in terms of the compromise referred to above. M.Rahman ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )