1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 3 of 2018 1 - Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Through Secretary Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited , 880 , Civil Lines , Head Office Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Thakur G. Pandey S/o Shri Shiv Nath Pandey Aged About 65 Years R/o Shivalay 1368 , Shanti Vihar Colony Rohinipuram Danganiya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. counsel with Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 14/10/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs : 10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 05.09.2017 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur under Industrial Dispute Act in Appeal Case No.44/P.G.A./2016 and consequently the application filed by the respondents claiming gratuity be dismissed. PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.10.17 17:02:36 +0530 2 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner from the court below; 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s) which the Hon’ble Court may deemed fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Facts of the case:- (a) that an application was filed by the respondent on 31.12.2013 before the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity stating that the after retirement on 30.11.2011 from the services of petitioner from the post General Manager after rendering services for 26 years 5 months and 10 days the respondent was not paid gratuity, thus the prayer was made before the Controlling Authority for directing the petitioners to pay the amount of gratuity. (b) that, the Controlling Authority issued notice to the petitioner on the application filed by the respondent. The petitioner has filed detail reply to the application filed respondent and has specifically stated in reply that payment of gratuity to respondent is not made because several departmental enquiry are pending against the respondent. The petitioner has stated that the as per the departmental enquiry sum of Rs. 22,22,709/- is to be recovered from respondent and adjudication of same is pending. (c) that, the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity, Raipur, by its order dated 12.09.2016 allowed the application of the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,46,650/-alongwith interest at the rate of 10% to the respondents within 30 days. (d) that, aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2016 passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity, Raipur an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 was filed by the respondent before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. (e) that, the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur by the impugned order dated 05.09.2017 (Annexure P/1) allowed the appeal filed by the employee and directed the petitioner to pay the gratuity amount of Rs 10,00,000/- and interest at the rate of 10% for 69 months. (f) that, the order passed by the Authorities under Payment of Gratuity Act is without jurisdiction and Appellate authority erred in modifying the order passed by the Controlling Authority. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is an Ex. Employee of 3 the petitioner. He submits that an application under the relevant provisions of Payment of gratuity Act, 1972 was filed by the respondent before the Court of Controlling Authority Payment of Gratuity Act, Raipur, CG against the petitioner. The said application was registered as Case No. 08/पी0 जी0 ए0/रा. जिजी./2014. By the order dated 12.09.2016, the controlling authority allowed the application of the petitioner and directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs. 6,46,650/- as amount of gratuity and 10% interest from 01.12.2011 till date of order i.e. 12.09.2016. The respondent challenge the said order by filing an appeal under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the appellate authority under the payment of gratuity Act, 1972 and Dy. Labour Commissioner office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, CG. The said appeal was registered as Appeal Case No. 44/ पी0 जी0 ए0/2016. The appeal of the respondent was allowed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 05.09.2017 and held that the petitioner had work for 27 years and therefore, he was entitled to Rs. 10,13,995/- as gratuity. As the maximum ceiling of payment of gratuity is Rs. 10,00,000/- the petitioner herein was directed to pay that much of amount and interest of Rs. 5,75,000/- for 69 months and thus the petitioner herein was directed to pay Rs. 15,75,000/-. Challenging this order, this instant writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute to the fact that the respondent was entitled to receive the gratuity, as he was an ex. Employee of the petitioner however, there is a departmental is pending against the respondent and according to the service rules governing the services of the respondent, the said amount could have not been granted, the said amount ought to have been withheld. Though he submits that the entire amount of the gratuity as directed by the appellate authority has already been disbursed to the respondent herein however, there should be a reinstating order that the said amount may not be utilized by the petitioner and there should be a an order for him to submit a surety for any order which may be passed during the course of departmental enquiry resulting into monitory loss to the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that for the present the relief may be 4 molded and the respondent may be directed to furnish a surety of Rs. 15,75,000/- and this petition may be disposed of. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Limited Vs. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange reported in (2017) 5 SCC 623. 5. Per contra, Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that in fact the petitioner was a party in the original application filed before controlling authority. The right of the petitioner to received the gratuity amount has been determined by the controlling authority and an amount of Rs. 6,46,650/- with 10% interest was directed to be paid by the petitioner. Though ground raised in writ petition was agitated by the petitioner in the proceedings before the controlling authority however, despite of that an order of payment of gratuity was passed. Thus the finding so recorded by the controlling authority became final. In fact the respondent had filed an appeal challenging the lessor amount and calculation of the gratuity being determined by the controlling authority before the appellate authority and as such only the determination of the gratuity amount was corrected by the appellate authority and rest of the finding has been affirmed by the appellate authority and therefore, as such the petitioner failed to challenge the order dated 12.09.2016 passed by controlling authority now petitioner cannot be permitted to raise this ground. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And others reported in (2007) 1 SCC 663. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the respondent is the ex-employee of the petitioner. There is also no dispute to the fact that he was not paid the gratuity amount thus an application under the relevant provisions of gratuity Act, 1972 was filed before the controlling authority, Raipur. From perusal of the order dated 13.09.2016 it appears that petitioner herein has also examined one witness who has categorical stated that four department enquiry was pending against the respondent therefore, the gratuity amount was not paid, meaning thereby the ground which has been agitated by the petitioner herein was 5 also subject matter of a dispute before the controlling authority. As such the controlling authority has not considered it to be a prudent ground to withheld the gratuity on account of pendency of four departmental enquiry against the respondent and despite that directed the payment of gratuity amount with 10 % interest. If the petitioner was aggrieved by such findings, the remedy against such order was to file an appeal before the appellate authority. In fact it is respondent who has agitated his claim against the order dated 12.09.2016 before the appellate authority and only the determination of the gratuity was corrected. 8. In the opinion of this Court as the petitioner failed to challenge the findings of the controlling authority rejecting its submission that on account of pending of the departmental equiry against the respondent, gratuity could have not been paid, it is not permitted to agitate the same before this Court. Apart from this, as the gratuity has already been paid. This Court is of the opinion no case is made out for interference in the impugned order by this Court. 9. In view of above, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan