- (1.) THE petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent Assistant Commissioner of Labour-cum-Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act to disburse the service benefits payable to one late S.Wilson Sundar Raj, the deceased workman employed by the second respondent management together with interest at the rate of 24% lying to his credit as per the order made by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in P.G. Appeal No.52/92, dated 19.9.1994. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 11.6.2008. On notice form this court, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. Since the counter affidavit was not satisfactory, this Court directed the original records to be produced. It was also summoned and circulated to this court.
(2.) THE second respondent though represented by their counsel informed that pursuant to the order of the authority, they had deposited the amount and they have been formally made as a party in the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the sole legal heir of his deceased sister Jane Beulah Ponmani, who was the wife of late S.Wilson Sundar Raj employed by the second respondent. She had executed the Will in favour of the petitioner on 12.5.1992 bequeathing all her properties belonging to her and also those vested in her on account of the death of her husband. The petitioner's sister's husband was employed as an Operator in the second respondent company. During his service, he expired on 10.3.1992. The petitioner's sister was nominated as his nominee for succeeding to the benefit of the amount payable to the late S.Wilson Sundar Raj. When she was seeking to claim those amounts and the second respondent also was willing to settle it in her favour, one J.Samuel, the father of the petitioner's sister's husband had objected to the payment of the benefit. In view of the objection received from the father-in-law of his sister, the second respondent had filed an application under Section 7(4)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act before the first respondent. Section 7(4)(b) reads as follows: "7(4)(b)Where there is a dispute with regard to any matter or matters specified in clause (a), the employer or employee or any other person raising the dispute may make an application to the controlling authority for deciding the dispute." Under Section 7(5), the power of the Authority is set out, which is as follows: "7(5)For the purpose of conducting an inquiry sub-section (4), the controlling authority shall have the same powers as are vested in a court, while trying a suit, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a)enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath; (b)requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c)receiving evidence on affidavits; (d)issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses."
(3.) AFTER making the application, the second respondent had deposited the entire amount to the credit of the said application. The Controlling Authority who took up the matter as P.G. Case No.44/92, by an order, dated 13.8.1992 had ordered as follows: "In the result I have no hesitation whatsoever to hold that the I respondent Mrs.Jane Beulah Ponmani is the rightful legal heir to the deceased employee and she alone is entitled to receive the gratuity amount of Rs.30,223/- deposited with this Authority with interest that would have been accrued by this time in full and award the same in favour of the I Respondent. Therefore the claim of the II Respondent fails. I pass orders accordingly." He directed payment of Rs.30223/- deposited with the first respondent to be paid to the petitioner's sister Jane Beulah Ponmani. But unfortunately even before receiving the said amount, the wife of late Wilson Sundar Raj died on 3.2.1993. She had left her father Soundararajan and mother Dora Elizabeth, the petitioner brother and two younger sisters as legal heirs as per the legal heirship certificate, dated 10.2.1993. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's sister's father-in-law J.Samuel, who is the father of late Wilson Sundar Raj had filed an appeal under Section 7(7) of the P.G. Act with the appellate authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The said appeal was taken on file as P.G.(A).No.52/92. Even during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner's sister died and therefore, the petitioner filed an affidavit as the legal heir of his sister. But the petitioner's sister's father-in-law Samuel had opposed the impleading application and stated that for his son Wilson Sundar Raj, he and his son's wife Jane Beula Ponmani alone are legal heirs. Since he being the only surviving legal heir and that the wife of Wilson Sundar Raj though was nominated having died, he alone should be paid the amount. In the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner's sister's father-in-law, the appellate authority held that such question cannot be gone into under the provisions of the Act. The rival claims have to be settled only through the Civil Court. Therefore, in its order, dated 19.9.1994, the authority had passed the following order which is as follows: "In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. The gratuity deposited before the Controlling Authority shall be paid to the person in whose favour the Civil Court decided the issue of succession." It now transpires that the first respondent even after the direction by the appellate authority to retain the amount pending rival claims regarding the line of succession to be sorted out through the Civil Court, had issued a notice on 20.2.1996 informing the second respondent as well as J.Samuel to come and receive the amount of Rs.30,223/- as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-cum-Appellate Authority in P.G. Appeal No.52/92, dated 19.9.1994. It is not clear as to where the first respondent got the authority to disburse the amount especially quoting the order of the appellate authority when the appellate authority himself held to the contrary. The appellate authority had stated that there is serious dispute relating to succession and that it will have to be decided only on the basis of the decree from the Civil Court. Further, the first respondent himself in its earlier order, dated 13.8.1992 had decided the claim in favour of the wife of late Wilson Sundar Raj and the appeal filed by J.Samuel against that order was dismissed by the appellate authority.;