Delhi High Court Orders State Trading Corporation Of India ... vs Harish Malhotra on 27 October, 2021 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:28.10.2021 17:40:47 $~38 * + W.P.(C) 12162/2021 & CM APPLs. 37926/2021, 37927/2021 STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath & Mr. Surya Panwar, Advocates. versus HARISH MALHOTRA ..... Respondent Through: None. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 27.10.2021 1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing. CM APPL. 37927/2021 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 12162/2021 & CM APPL. 37926/2021 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner/State Trading Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter "STC") challenging the order dated 27th July, 2021 passed by the Ld. Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi (hereinafter "Authority") in ALCIII/36(293)/2019 titled Harish Kumar Malhotra v. The Joint General Manager (Personal). By the impugned order, the Authority has held that the Respondent/Employee was entitled to receive gratuity of Rs.75,089/ along with simple interest at 10% per annum. 4. The grievance of the Respondent/Employee is that the gratuity amount of Rs.75,089/ which was due to him from his previous employer W.P.(C) 12162/2021 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:28.10.2021 17:40:47 Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (hereinafter "BHEL") was transferred to his new employer Petitioner/STC, but the same was not paid to him upon his superannuation. On the other hand, the stand of the STC is that no gratuity amount has been received by it from BHEL in respect of the Employee. 5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27th July, 2021 shows that the Respondent has worked with the STC for more than 37 years and under these circumstances, the gratuity amount of Rs.75,089/ along with interest, w.e.f. 1st June, 2018 has been directed to be paid. It also shows that some amounts have been deposited by BHEL in the employee's gratuity account with the new employer i.e., Petitioner/STC. However, there is no clarity as to whether the said amount was released by the STC to the Employee or not. The relevant extract of the said order dated 27th July, 2021 is as under: "The Applicant raised the matter with the BHEL, his previous employer. The BHEL agreed to pay him gratuity for the period from 23.03.1978 to 06.02.1981 he was working with them. BHEL in its reply further says that it cannot pay the gratuity directly to an employee with less than 05 years of service and the same could only have been transferred to the account of new employer (STC). But the Opponent says that as the gratuity account of the Applicant has already been closed with them, therefore, the Applicant can directly claim the same from the previous employer, BHEL. "xxx xxx xxx In the present case, the Applicant is entangled between the complication of facts and law. Both the BHEL as well as the STC have their own pleas and technically both are correct also. But the Applicant is held up in this complexity. There is a phrase that where there is a will, there is a way. W.P.(C) 12162/2021 Page 2 of 4 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:28.10.2021 17:40:47 Another maxim is where there is a law there is a remedy. If one wants to solve the problem with an open mind, he can solve it. But only thing that matters is the will power of the person deciding the