Rajesh Shankar,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the finding of the respondent no. 2- Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hazaribagh-cum-Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short "the Act, 1972") dated 13.09.2006 in Case No.36(73) of 2006 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the respondent no.-1. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 29.12.2006 passed by the respondent no. 3- the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad-cum-Appellate Authority under the Act, 1972 in PG Appeal No.27 of 2006 whereby the appeal preferred by petitioner against decision of the respondent no.-2 has been dismissed.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent no.1 was working as a Foreman at Swang Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) and he was allotted a company quarter. He retired from service of the petitioner on 31.01.2004. The management calculated the amount of gratuity payable to the respondent no. 1 and directed him to vacate the company's quarter and to collect the gratuity amount which was lying with the management. The respondent no. 1 did not respond to the said direction and continued to remain in occupation of the said quarter. After a much delay, the respondent no. 1 filed an application for release of the gratuity amount. The respondent no. 2 passed an order dated 13.09.2006 directing the petitioner management to pay the gratuity amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the respondent no. 1. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal being PG Appeal No. 27 of 2006 under section 7 of the Act, 1972 and also deposited the entire amount ordered to be paid in terms with the Proviso to sub-section (7) of section 7 of the Act, 1972 before the respondent no. 3 contending therein that the respondent no. 1 is liable to pay penal rent @ Rs. 6.25 per sq.feet per month after 30.04.2004 and accordingly a sum of Rs. 1,46,378/- is payable by the respondent no. 1 towards the penal rent. However, the respondent no.3 vide order dated 29.12.2006 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner affirming the order passed by the respondent no.2.
(3.) Mr. A.K.Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that even after the direction of the petitioner management to vacate the quarter, the respondent no. 1 continued to remain in unauthorized occupation of the said quarter and hence as per the company's rules, the respondent no. 1 was liable to pay penal rent alongwith electricity and water charges @ Rs. 6.25 per sq.feet per month. It is further submitted that in catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have held that the management is entitled to adjust penal rent against the gratuity payable to the employee.;