- (1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by order dated 13.11.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 546 of 2011 whereby, the learned Single Judge has ordered that the amount of gratuity would be paid to the appellant after the appellant vacates the quarter. Insofar as, the grievance of the appellant with respect to charging of penal rent is concerned, a liberty was given to the appellant to agitate his grievance before the competent Estate Officer. The appellant was appointed as Cleaner in the year, 1968 and he superannuated from service on 30.4.2005. The appellant was permitted to retain the quarter allotted to him after his retirement as per Company's policy. The appellant even after his superannuation from service did not vacate the quarter which he was permitted to retain, in these facts, the amount of gratuity due to the appellant was not released by the respondent -Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro and therefore, the appellant approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 546 of 2011.
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the respondents could not have retained the amount of gratuity on the ground of retention of official quarter by the appellant inasmuch as, the retention of gratuity amount for such reason would be contrary to the statutory provision of the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972. Relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in "Mining and Allied Machinery v. Ram Ranjan Mukherjee and Ors.", reported in : 2004 (1) CHN 510, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has tried to distinguish the order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 15 of 2013: it is further submitted that the appellant did not give any undertaking to the respondent for retention of gratuity amount, a distinguishing fact as in the case of "Bokaro Steel Limited v. Shri Ram Naresh Singh and Ors." in L.P.A. No. 15 of 2013 and therefore, the respondents were bound in law to release the amount of gratuity to the appellant immediately on the appellant reaching the age of superannuation. Taking an exception to the direction given by the learned Single Judge whereby the respondent -Bokaro Steel City was directed to release the gratuity amount upon the appellant vacating the official quarter, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that such a condition could not have been imposed by the learned Single Judge as it would be in the teeth of Section 4(6) of the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents -SAIL has seriously disputed the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that in the present case also the appellant has furnished an undertaking and the order dated 14.7.2005 would itself indicate that all the benefits to an employee would be released only after vacating the official quarter, it is further submitted that the quarter was retained by to the appellant only upon the appellant giving an undertaking whereby he agreed for retention of an amount equivalent to the gratuity amount and in pursuance of the same the gratuity amount due to the appellant has been retained by the respondent -company. it is further submitted that the facts and issue in the present case are squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court in L.P.A. No. 15 of 2013.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the counsel appearing for the parties.;