S.N.Pathak,J. - (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the Appellate Order dated 2 nd February, 2016 passed by Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad and Controlling Authority under P.G. Act 1972 in PGA No.(54)/2015 (Annexure-4), whereby and whereunder an appeal so filed by the Area Manager, FCI, District Office against the order dated 16 th June, 2015 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad in PG Application No. 36 (85) /2014 E-6 has been allowed and for a direction to pay the balance Gratuity amount to the petitioner with interest within stipulated period.
(2.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of AG-III (D) in FCI and joined on 16.01.1978 and since then he was in continuous services till 31.07.2014 i.e. the date of his superannuation. During his service tenure i.e. more than 36 years, he got two promotions in recognition of his devoted service to the Corporation. It is specific case of the petitioner that when he was on the verge of retirement, a charge-sheet dated 28.09.2013 was issued against the petitioner for major misconduct for failure in maintaining absolute integrity /devotion to duty and alleged indulgence in high percentage of storage loses of RBGA and RBC. Immediately after receiving the charge memo, the petitioner refuted and denied the charges leveled against him, but without considering his explanation a joint perfunctory enquiry was held against the petitioner and others. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceeding though it was not proper and fair and was conducted haphazardly without providing proper opportunity to defend his case. The enquiry proceeding was not concluded till his date of retirement i.e. 31.07.2014 rather it was concluded later on. Subsequently, vide order dated 31.12.2014, punishment of reduction to the initial pay in the time scale of pay to the post of AG-I (D) w.e.f. the date of retirement was passed and further order for forfeiture of gratuity was passed which amounts to double jeopardy. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had moved before CGIT, Dhanbad by filing Ref. No.4/2015, which is pending for adjudication. However, the petitioner was allowed to retire from his service without any condition and no order for forfeiture of his gratuity amount was ever issued to the petitioner at that time. It is further case of the petitioner that total gratuity amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was payable to the petitioner whereas Rs. 4,33,264/- has only been paid to him but that has been denied by the appellate order dated 02.02.2016, which is challenged herein. The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the non-payment of full amount of gratuity as the same has been forfeited by the respondents and only an amount of Rs.433,264/- has been paid by taking his last drawn wages as Rs. 21,234/-. The petitioner challenged the same before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Danbad as bearing Application No. 36 (85/2014 E-6 and same was allowed with a direction upon the respondents to pay the balance gratuity amount of Rs. 5,46,736/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of findings. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-Management filed an Appeal before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner having No. PGA No. 54/2015 on the ground that since this petitioner had been imposed a penalty of reduction to the initial pay in the time scale of pay of the post of AG-1 (D) in a disciplinary proceeding against major charge-sheet in which he was found guilty by the disciplinary authority. Appellate Authority disagreed with the original order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent-Management. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
(3.) Mr. M. M. Pal, learned Sr. counsel assailing the impugned order submits that the appellate order dated 02.02.2016 is illegal as the same has been passed on extraneous circumstances and without application of mind. She further submits that the impugned order has been passed by totally ignoring the decisions cited there on as also without considering the fact the employer had failed to deposit the amount as per order passed by the Controlling Authority, which was precondition for filing of the appeal. Learned Sr. counsel further submits that the petitioner is entitled for his balance Gratuity amount in terms of the order dated 16.05.2015 passed by the Controlling Authority. She further submits that the petitioner was retired from the services on attaining the age of superannuation and there was no punishment on the date of his superannuation. Section 4 (6) of the Gratuity Act is very clear and same is not applicable in the instant case and as such, respondents have wrongly withheld /forfeited the balance amount of gratuity. She further argues that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of punishment of deduction of pay, which is passed on 31.12.2014 i.e. after the date of retirement and as such, punishment will not affect the entitlement of the petitioner of balance gratuity amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the reported judgment of Honble Apex Court in case of Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 663. On such grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order of Appellate Order is liable to be quashed and set aside and a direction be given upon the respondents to pay the balance gratuity amount to the petitioner as per Order of Controlling Authority.;