- (1.) Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, has filed this intra Court appeal against the order dated April 7, 2014, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 19721 of 2011) filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 16.2.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act')-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bathinda, directing the appellant to pay additional gratuity to Girdhari Lal (respondent No. 3 herein) with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 25.3.2010, i.e. the date of filing of the application, till the date of realisation of the amount; and the order dated 5.9.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 1) upholding the said order, has been dismissed. Though there is a delay of 104 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed application (CM No. 3045-LPA of 2014) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned Counsel for the appellant on merits, and gone through the order, passed by the learned Single Judge. In this case, respondent No. 3 retired from the post of Superintendent from the appellant Corporation on 31.1.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation, after completing 38 years of service. At that time, he was paid an amount of Rs. 1,74,125/- as gratuity under the Punjab Municipal Corporation Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). However, vide judgment dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure P-9) passed in CWP No. 13655 of 2009 (Municipal Council, Budhlada v. The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972-cum-Labour Commissioner, Punjab and others), it was held that the Municipal employees are entitled to payment of gratuity as calculated under the provisions of the Act. In view of the said judgment, respondent No. 3 moved an application for grant of additional gratuity. The Controlling Authority under the Act allowed the said application vide order dated 16.2.2011 (Annexure P-3) and held that under the provisions of the Act, respondent No. 3 was entitled to receive Rs. 2,31,354/- as gratuity, therefore, the appellant Corporation was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 51,229/- along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The said order was challenged by the appellant Corporation by filing an appeal and vide order dated 5.9.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority, the appeal was dismissed. The said order of the Appellate Authority has been upheld by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation argued that the relief of additional gratuity should have been declined to respondent No. 3 on account of delay and laches, as after more than ten years of his retirement, he moved an application dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) for payment of additional gratuity on the basis of calculation of gratuity under the provisions of the Act. This contention is without any substance. In our opinion, payment of gratuity is a statutory obligation of the Management and this Court in Municipal Council, Budhlada's case , copy of which was annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-9, has held that the Municipal employees are entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act and not on the basis of the Rules. In view of this declaration of law, respondent No. 3 was legally entitled for payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Act and the appellant Corporation is under statutory obligation to pay the same to him. When a State organisation is under statutory obligation to pay the amount, such amount cannot be denied to the employee on the ground of delay and laches. Merely because the application dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) was filed by respondent No. 3 earlier to the passing of the aforesaid judgment dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure P-9), the relief can not be denied to him. No other point has been raised by learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation. No merit. Dismissed.;