NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 90 of 2020 1 - The Chairman Cum Managing Director South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hq District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shri Raj Kishore Manjhi S/o Arjun Manjhi Flat No- 406/vista-4, Uniworld City, New Town, North 24 Paraganas, Kolkatta(West Bengal)700156, District : North Twenty Four Parganas, West Bengal 2 - Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Chief Labour Commissiioner (C), Government Of India, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Raipur, Chhattisgharh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Controlling Authority And Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Abhishek Banjare, Advocate For respondent No.1 : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s) : “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire record of Appellate Authority as well as Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in Case No. BSP-36(83)/2018-RLC and Appeal No. PGA-11/2019. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act as well as order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the Controlling Authority. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold that the Respondent No. 1 is not entitled for interest on gratuity. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The facts in brief are that respondent No.1, who was working on the post -2- of General Manager (Mining) under the petitioner Company retired from services on 30.04.2018 on account of superannuation. At the time of superannuation, three departmental inquiries were pending against him. In all departmental inquiries, orders were passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 23.08.2018, 05.10.2018 & 10.11.2018, wherein, penalty of reduction to lower stage for the period of two years with retrospective effect was passed. During pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, respondent No.1 approached the Controlling Authority for grant of gratuity and the amount of gratuity Rs.20,00,000/- was paid by the employer to respondent No.1 on 27.12.2018. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 25.02.2019 directed the petitioner/employer to make payment of interest @ 10% from the date of retirement till date of payment of amount of gratuity. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against said order before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in the month of May, 2019 assailing the order passed by the Controlling Authority dated 25.02.2019. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.01.2020 directed the petitioner herein to pay interest from the date the amount of gratuity became payable i.e. 30.04.2018 till date of preparation of demand draft dated 03.07.2019 and granted 30 days time to submit receipt. 3. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Company would contend that the amount of gratuity Rs.20,00,000/- admissible to respondent No.1 was paid by the petitioner on 27.12.2018 and the Controlling Authority directed to make payment of interest @ 10% from 30.04.2018 till 27.12.2018 and said amount was paid by the petitioner through a demand draft on 03.07.2019. Mr. Deshmukh would contend that as the appeal before the Appellate Authority was preferred by the petitioner/employer, there was no occasion to pass any adverse order against the petitioner. He would submit that the Appellate Authority could have dismissed or allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. He would submit that the observation made by the Appellate Authority in concluding para of order dated 24.01.2020 is erroneous and may be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3 would oppose the submissions. He would submit that the petitioner deposited the amount of interest pursuant to order passed by the Controlling Authority, therefore, the Appellate Authority rightly directed the petitioner to pay interest from 30.04.2018 till preparation of demand draft i.e. 03.07.2019 and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. This petition can be allowed for simple reason that appeal before the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was preferred by the petitioner/employer and the recourse available to the authority concerned was either to dismiss it or allow it. As appeal was not preferred by the workman for modification of order passed by the Controlling Authority, therefore, the observation made by the Appellate Authority in concluding para of order dated 24.01.2020 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 24.01.2020 is hereby set aside and order passed by the Controlling Authority dated 25.02.2019 is restored. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha