1 APHC010422662012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 30085/2012 Between: Gudipati Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Rao ...PETITIONER AND The Deputy Commissioner Of Labour and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR 2. A VEERASWAMY The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records leading up to and inclusive of the order dated 14052012 passed in PGA Case No 7/2012 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Vijayawada the I Respondent herein and quash the same with a consequential direction to grant interest 18 p a on the amount of gratuity of Rs 4 40 415/ from the date of retirement of the writ petitioner i e 31072010 till the date when the Writ Petitioner withdrew the amount of Gratuity deposited by the Management in the interest of justice and pass….” 2 2. . The grievance of the petitioner is that he was initially worked as Draftsman on adhoc basis and his services were regularized w.e.f. 15.07.1984 in the said College. The petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2010. At the time of his retirement, all the retirement benefits were paid, except gratuity. Then, the petitioner approached the management requesting for payment of gratuity, for which, he is legally entitled to. The management, however, without considering the case of the petitioner, rejected for payment of gratuity. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Machilipatnam, the 2nd Respondent herein and filed PG Case No.3/2010 U/s 8 R/w Rule 10(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming a sum of Rs.4,40,415/- towards gratuity as the petitioner is legally entitled for the same. The Respondents 3 & 4 herein filed their counters in the above PG case and contested matter on several grounds contending inter alia that the petitioner is not entitled to gratuity. The Controlling Authority, the 2nd Respondent herein, on a careful consideration of facts and law, allowed the case by order dated 31.12.2011 directing the Respondents 3 & 4 herein to pay a sum of Rs.4,40,415/-. However the Primary authority declined to grant interest on the amount so awarded towards gratuity. Aggrieved by the aforesaid said order, the Respondents 3 & 4 herein filed an appeal in PGA Case No. 4/2012 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, the 1st Respondent herein, the Appellate Authority under the Act. The petitioner herein also preferred an appeal in PGA Case No. 7/2012 before the 1st respondent. The 1st 3 respondent after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal PGA Case No. 4/2012 by order dated 13.5.2012 and that the appeal filed by the petitioner herein also was dismissed by the 1st respondent vide order dated 14.05.2012 in PGA No.7/2012. Thereafter, the respondents 2 & 4 aggrieved by order dated 13.5.2012 passed in PGA Case No.4/2012, preferred WP No.26346 of 2012 before this Court and this Court while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim stay of all further proceedings in PG Case No.3/2010 by order dated 04-08-2012 including disbursement of the amount for a period of four weeks. It is stated that, by the time when the interim order is passed by this Court, the petitioner has already withdrawn the amount awarded towards gratuity. It is further stated that aggrieved by the order dated 14.5.2012 passed in PGA Case No.4/2012 by the 1st Respondent herein, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed counter affidavit eloign with Leave petition. While denying the allegations made in the petition, stated that, the Management Committee-the respondent No.3 herein and the 4th respondent college have preferred an appeal in PGA Case No.7 of 2012 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent in the above PGA Case No.7 of 2012 stated that the Management College is an unaided Educational Institution and it is used to depend upon the tuition fee (fixed by the Government) collected from students and hence no amount was awarded towards interest by the Lower authority is in order in the eye of principles of natural justice and it is not discretion of the lower authority 4 against Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. However, the 2nd respondent herein directed the respondents No.3 and 4 to pay a sum of amount of Rs.4,40,415/- to the petitioner herein. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the 1st respondent while dismissing the appeal passed the orders confirming that the orders passed by the lower authority holds good. Therefore, there are no grounds to entertain the present writ petition and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri S. Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Labour and Sri A. Veera Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, requests this Court to allow the present writ petition. 6. Whereas, learned counsels appearing for the respondents have also while reiterating the contents made in the counter, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that, the petitioner herein was retired from Service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2010 and all the retirement benefits were paid to the petitioner except Gratuity for which the petitioner herein approached the Management of 4th respondent College but the 4th respondent has not 5 considered the case of the petitioner herein. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed a PG Case No.3/2010 under Section 8 r/w Rule 10(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 before the 2nd respondent claiming a sum of Rs.4,40,415/- towards Gratuity along with 18% interest from the date of retirement till the date of realization. The same was allowed by the 2nd respondent directing the respondents No.3 and 4 to pay a sum of Rs.4,40,415/- to the petitioner herein vide order dated 31.12.2011, but rejected the claim of granting interest on the amount so awarded towards gratuity. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that, the retirement benefits of the petitioner have already been paid by the respondents and later the 2nd respondent has also directed the respondents No.3 and 4 to pay a sum of Rs.4,40,415/- to the petitioner towards gratuity. As stated by learned counsel for the respondents that the Management college is an unaided Educational Institution and it is used to depend upon the tuition fee collected from the students. Moreover, whatever the amount of Gratuity, which is entitled to the petitioner, has already been directed by the 2nd respondent and the same was withdrew by the petitioner herein in the year 2011 itself. 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court found no merit in the instant writ petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : -04-2025 Gvl 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITON No.33951 of 2022 Date : 10.04.2025 Gvl