U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director and Another v. Purushottam Verma and 2 Others

Order on IA No.01 of 2023

¶1The abovesaid application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application.

¶2Sri Alok Mishra, learned Counsel for the opposite party (petitioner of the writ petition) has no objection.

¶3The application is allowed.

¶4The delay in filing the review application is condoned. Order on Review Application

¶5The present application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 22.09.2023, whereby this Court had passed an order quashing the order dated 10.05.2023 by which, an order was passed for withholding the gratuity on the basis of audit objection found against the petitioner. This Court after considering the mandatory provisions and the earlier judgments of this Court held that the proceedings as contemplated under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act were not existed against the petitioner, thus, the withholding of gratuity was not justified.

¶6It is argued by the Counsel for the applicants (respondents in the writ petition) that apart from the order dated 10.05.2023, an order, which was similar in nature to the said order, was also passed on 21.09.2023, whereby directions for withholding the gratuity in terms of the audit objection were issued against him. He argues that the order dated 21.09.2023 continues against the petitioner and certain problems have arisen in respect of the compliance of the judgment dated 22.09.2023.

¶7It is also on record that against the said judgment sought to be reviewed, a Special Appeal No.502 of 2023 was preferred, however, the same was disposed off permitting the appellant therein to file an appropriate application vide order dated

28.10.2023. In terms of the said liberty, the present review application has been filed.

¶8Sri Alok Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposes the review application by arguing that the issue decided by this Court vide its judgment dated 22.09.2023 was in respect of the power to stop the gratuity in the absence of proceedings referable to Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

¶9The Counsel for the applicant at this stage argues that apart from the gratuity, the leave encashment and the other retrial dues of the petitioner are also restrained.

¶10Considering the submissions made at the bar, in the judgement dated 22.09.2023, this Court was of the view that unless the proceedings as contemplated under Section 4(6) of the Act are initiated merely on the basis of audit objection, the retiral dues including the gratuity cannot be withhold and the same is in violation of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Even the subsequent order dated

21.09.2023 is based upon the audit objection. As no proceedings have been initiated, which can be deciphered in the order dated 21.09.2023, the analogy on which the judgment and order dated 22.09.2023 passed, cannot be faulted.

¶11To further clarify, the order dated 21.09.2023 also suffers from the same vice, based upon which, the order dated

10.05.2023 was quashed, as such, it is directed that the petitioner shall be paid the entire dues. Even otherwise, no disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated, which can be termed as the proceedings referable to Section 4(6) of the Act. The order dated 21.09.2023 is also quashed on the same reasoning.

¶11The review application is allowed. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 akverma High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 239 of 2023 Applicant :- U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director And Another Opposite Party :- Purushottam Verma And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- Alok Mishra Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.