Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sheikh Mehmood, was employed as a Typist with respondent Nos.1 and 2 (M/s Universal Medikit Private Ltd. and its Chairman) from 29 July 1982 and later promoted to Medical Representative in 2003. His services were terminated in 2005. He filed an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Controlling Authority, which directed the respondents to pay gratuity of Rs.97,405/- with interest. The respondents challenged this order by filing a writ petition (Writ Petition No.853/2010), which was dismissed as they had not exhausted the appellate remedy. Their subsequent appeal was also dismissed. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) challenging his termination. In that complaint, the respondents filed an application seeking dismissal on the ground that the petitioner had already accepted gratuity, thereby accepting termination. The Industrial Court, by order dated 29 June 2018, allowed the respondents' revision application and directed the petitioner to deposit the gratuity amount received within two months, pending adjudication of the termination challenge. The petitioner challenged this order in the present writ petition. The High Court held that the right to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act is a statutory right independent of the challenge to termination. The Industrial Court, while adjudicating a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, has no power to impose such a condition. The order was quashed and set aside, and the Industrial Court was directed to proceed with the complaint on its own merits without insisting on deposit of gratuity.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Payment of Gratuity - Condition for Adjudication - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Section 4 - The Industrial Court directed the complainant to deposit the gratuity amount received under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as a condition for adjudicating his complaint challenging termination under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The High Court held that the right to gratuity is a statutory right independent of the challenge to termination, and the Industrial Court cannot impose such a condition as it has no power under the MRTU & PULP Act to do so. The order was quashed. (Paras 1-9) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Interim Relief - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 28 - The Industrial Court, while adjudicating a complaint under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, cannot direct the complainant to deposit gratuity received under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as a condition for proceeding with the complaint. Such a direction is without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme of the Acts. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court can direct a complainant to deposit the amount of gratuity received by him under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as a condition for adjudicating his challenge to the order of termination under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the Industrial Court order dated 29/06/2018, and directed the Industrial Court to proceed with the complaint on its own merits without insisting on deposit of gratuity.
Law Points
- Payment of gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act
- 1972 is a statutory right independent of challenge to termination
- Industrial Court cannot impose condition of depositing gratuity received while adjudicating unfair labour practice complaint
