D.P.Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri P.K. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The respondent No. 3 was an employee of M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. The services of the respondent-workman was terminated on 24th May, 1986 and an appeal preferred before the Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation was also dismissed on 4th April, 1987. It is stated that taking a humanitarian approach, the Corporation gave re-employment to the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 6th April, 1987, which offer was accepted by the respondent No. 3, and he joined on the said past. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 19957 of 1987 claiming continuity of service before this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed on 16th March, 1993. He, thereafter, preferred an application for payment of gratuity before the State Authority. Before the State Authority, serious objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation that the State Authority was not competent, in view of the fact that the petitioner Corporation was wholly owned by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Authority was competent to pass order for payment of gratuity. Nevertheless, the State Authority vide its order dated 12.5.1998 granted gratuity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 was conscious of the fact that the State Authority was not the competent authority, therefore, he made an application before the Central Authority which application has been allowed and the gratuily has been directed to be paid together with interest at the rate of 10%. The aforesaid order passed by the Central Authority is impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the respondent No. 3 had invoked the jurisdiction of the State Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, he could not approach the Central Authority appointed under the Act. He has further contended that the workman was not entitled to any interest, since the delay, if any, was caused by him in invoking the jurisdiction of the State Authority.;