- (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner namely, M/s B.C.C. Ltd. has challenged the order dated 13.4.2000 passed by Regional Labour Commissioner, (Central), Dhanbad and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972. The short question falls for consideration is as to whether with -holding of payment of Gratuity on the ground of employee not vacating quarter after superannuation is justified. Facts of the instant case is that respondent No. 3 superannuated on 30.6.97 from the service of the petitioner. Petitioner -management sanctioned the gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/ - vide Office Order dated 14.8.97 and an account payee cheque dated 20.11.97 was prepared for payment to the employee on production of no demand certificate. It appears that when gratuity amount was not paid respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 18.11.97 requested the petitioner for release of the Gratuity amount and also allow him to retain the quarter. However, respondent No. 3 vacated the quarter on 2.5.98 and thereafter he was paid gratuity amount on 31.7.98. Since the gratuity amount was not paid within 30 days from the date of Superannuation respondent No. 3 made a claim on 20.1.99 before the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, for payment of interest on the gratuity amount. Both the authorities have held that since the gratuity amount was not paid within time provided in the law, petitioner -management is liable to pay interest amount.
(3.) MR . A.K. Mehta. learned counsel for the petitioner put heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India v. K. Balakrishna Nambiar" (1998) Lab IC -2993) and submitted that if the employee fails to vacate the quarter after superannuation then no interest on Gratuity amount is payable. Mr. Mehta however, has not disputed the provisions of law that the gratuity amount is payable within 30 days from the date of superannuation and it can not be with -held on any ground or subject to fulfillment of any condition.;