IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24507 of 2017 The Managing Director, Odisha Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Industrial Estate, Po- Khapuria, Cuttack …. Petitioner Mr. J. K. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- The Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority and another …. Opp. Parties Ms. Suman Pattanayak, AGA Mr. A. K. Ray, Advocate For O.P. No.2 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 06.03.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioner i.e. the Managing Director, OSICL seeks the following prayer: “In the circumstances stated above it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit the writ application, issue notice to the opposite parties calling for show cause as to why this writ application shall not be allowed and if the opposite parties fail to file any show cause or file insufficient cause the writ petition be allowed and the order dt. 07.11.2016 passed by the Controlling Authority in P. G. Case No-32/2014, under Annexure-3 and order dt.11.10.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority in P. G. (A) Case No- 5/2016 under Annexure-5 be quashed.” 3. The background facts of the case are that Opposite Party No.2, an employee of the Petitioner-Establishment, retired on 30.11.2013 after rendering a total service of 32 years, 5 months and 25 days. At the time of retirement, he was drawing a salary of ₹56,286/-. For non-payment of his gratuity, Opposite Party No.2 filed an application before the Controlling Authority under Section 7 read with Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity Act claiming a sum of ₹9,28,719/- with interest. The Controlling Authority, upon adjudication of the matter, allowed the application of Opposite Party No.2 and directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of ₹10,00,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 01.12.2013 till payment. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioner- Establishment preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority, however, concurred with the findings of the Controlling Authority and directed the Petitioner-Establishment to comply with the said direction. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Establishment, submits that the amount in question, as required under law, had already been deposited with the Controlling Authority and the same has since been disbursed in favour of Opposite Party No.2. 6. Challenge has been made before this Court to the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the application having not filed within the stipulated time as required under the Rules, the direction for payment of interest @ 10% per annum is not in sustainable in the eye of law. It is further contended that, in place of the claimed amount of ₹9,28,719/-, the Controlling Authority directed deposit of ₹10,00,000/- with interest @ 10% with effect from 01.12.2013. 7. The sole submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner- Establishment is that since the applicant had not sought the claim within the stipulated time, the levy of interest upon the Establishment is per se illegal being not in accordance with law and therefore calls for interference. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 that the applicant has expired in the meantime, this Court is of the view that instead of dragging the legal heirs into the litigation, the matter deserves to be resolved in this journey itself. The amount claimed by Opposite Party No.2 before the Controlling Authority was ₹9,28,719/-, whereas the direction to deposit gratuity was to the tune of ₹10,00,000/- appears not to be in strict consonance with law. However, insofar as the imposition of interest is concerned, this Court is of the view that since the amount was not deposited within the time stipulated under law, the Establishment is liable to pay interest on ₹9,28,719/- from the date of the application, i.e., 24.12.2014, till the date of deposit with the authority along with 10% interest thereon for the said period. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. The Petitioner-Establishment is directed to deposit the differential amount along with the interest within a period of eight (8) weeks. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan Designation: Senior Stenographer