Hi,
The controlling authority was not justified in holding interest and high court order was not a bar on it. You may appreciate high in this regard.
Does an interim order of high court bar the jurisdiction of controlling authority under PG Act 1972
1- In nov.2004 ,employee was removed from services of employer for unauthorised absence . His terminal dues were not released . No reasons were given . 2-In aug.2005, Employee moved high court for squashing of the order and for reinstatement in service 2a- in aug 2007, employer asked employee to collect cheques for his PF and Gratuity dues without giving any details of it .Employee immediately pointed out that some increments that were fallen due had not been released resulting in wrong calculation of PF and Gratuity amounts ffered by the employer , requesting correction in cheque amount .Employer never bothered to reply . 3-In july 2011, high court remitted the matter to appellate authority of employer for reconsideration . 4-In nov.2012 , appellate authority of employer rejected appeal . 5-In nov 2013 , employee again moved high court for squashing of order and requesting backwages as he had attained age of superannuation in June 2013 and also for a direction to employer to release the terminal dues withheld by the employer . 6- In june 2014 , court directed the employer to release the dues immediately stating interest thereon will be considered at final hearing . 7- in july 2014 , employer released the dues ( PF & Gratuity ) that was accrued as on nov 2004 . 8- In nov 2014, on finding that gratuity amount was not correctly calculated by the employer , employee apprached controlling authority for differential gratuity . 9- In aug.2018 ,Controlling authority allowed the differential gratuity and interest only from july 2014 to date of actual payment of it .and not from nov 2004 when gratuity had become due and payable stating that though the matter before court and the controlling authority were totally different and unrelated , court order regarding interest was binding on it not withstanding pgact being an independent code by itself . Hence the query . Q1- was controlling authority justified in denying interest on gratuity from nov 2004 ? Q2- Does an interim order of high court acts as a bar on jurisdiction of controlling authority under pgact 1972 from discharging his obligations under pg act 1972 ?
Asked 7 years ago in Labour
9 Answers
1. No, the controlling authority shall give the interest from the date from which the payment of the gratuity was due.
2. No, it does not.
Has the HC directed he employer to pay interest from 2004 or the HC is silent on the same?
Regards
Sir firstly in you plaint is relief of interest asked before the high court from the period? And does the high court order mentions anything.
if not.
1. The interest should be calculated from time it became payable that from 2004.
2. No it does not bar till the time interim order give same relief or in your plaint you sought the relief of interest from high court.
Which of dearness allowance as of (nov 2003 the day salary was stopped or of nov 2004 when removed from service )be taken for calculation of gratuity ? Controlling authority has taken DA of Nov 2003 when salary was stopped for calculation of differential gratuity amount .
Asked 7 years ago
That is right DA of the time when the last salary was drawn will be taken into consideration.
Regards
Sir the amount shall be calculated as per the prescribed if it is wrongly calculated then relief in same can be prayed and the differential gratuity can be taken.
The word Salary last drawn is there so obviously last drawn Salary has to be taken in account for the calculation of the gratuity
1. Authority is wrong to not to give interest w.e.f 2004 but as you have mentioned that Hon'ble High Court has said in order that the question of interest will be considered at final hearing then please see what happened there after.
2. Yes.
the CA granted differential gratuity with interest from July 2014 till actual payment
for the interest prior to July 2014, the employee is protected by the HC interim order which the court will decide at final hearing
so i do not see any ground for challenge against the order of CA granting interest from July 2014 and not prior to that
The controlling authority is bound by the high court orders even it may be an interim orders.
The bar on jurisdiction is a matter of interpretation, if aggrieved by this, you may approach court once again with another application seeking its intervention.
The situation ad on the date of effect of termination would be considered for calculating the gratuity.