SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD - (1.) The order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi in Application No.36(12)/2016-RLC(R) in the capacity of controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is under challenge by allowing the completion has directed for disbursement of amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- in view of the provision of Section 4 of the Act, 1972 along with interest @ 10 % per annum.
(2.) Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel has raised the following questions of law: (I) The order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, is excess of jurisdiction, since the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which defines the definition of controlling authority under the provision of Section 3, whereby and whereunder the appropriate government will come out with a notification appointing any person to be controlling authority for determination of the administration of this Act. He has also referred to the provision of definition of the controlling authority as defined under Section 2(d) which means an authority appointed by an authority under Section 3. He has also referred to the Form-U containing therein of a clause under Clause no.11 with the heading Machinery for enforcement of the Act, Central spheres- All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central) have been appointed as Controlling Authorities and all the Regional Labour Commissioners (Central) as Appellate Authorities.
(3.) He submits that the controlling authority in view of the provision of Section 3 is the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Regional Labour Commissioner is the appellate authority but has assumed the jurisdiction of the original authority, therefore, it is contrary to the provision of Section 3 of the Act, 1972 read with Clause 11 as contained in Form-U. (II) He further submits that although the statutory amount, pertaining to Rs.10,00,000/- after amendment in Section 4(6) whereby and whereunder the ceiling of amount of gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/-, has been paid in favour of the respondent no.2, but so far as the interest part is concerned, it is incumbent upon the claimant to make an application in pursuance to the provision contained in Section 7 (3A) and if the application is filed in pursuance to the said provision and if not paid then it would be presumed to be default on the part of the employer and in that circumstances the claim would be paid along with interest but here the claim has been filed after much delay. But without providing of opportunity, delay has been condoned in one line i.e delay in filing claim is condoned, hence the order is not sustainable.;