Upon companyclusion of the departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority by an order dated 5.07.2000 opined Whereas the undersigned has gone through the chargesheet dated 24.02.97 issued to Shri Gill, enquiry proceedings and report of Inquiring Authority dated 18.08.99 and other documents related to the case placed before him.
During pendency of the departmental proceeding, the appellant was allowed to retire.
On an appeal preferred by Respondent No.
He applied for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for short the Act in the year 1998 which was denied.
He was working in a companying companyl mine which vested in the Bharat Coking Coal Limited pursuant to an appropriate numberification issued by the Central Government either under Section 7 of the Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1972 or Section 5 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973.
Notices having been issued by the said authority, Respondent No.
1 in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi which was marked as W.P. C No.
1 filed reply thereto inter alia companytending that the gratuity amount payable to the appellant had been withheld for the purpose of making of adjustment, in the event recovery from the said amount is directed to be made in the disciplinary proceedings.
1, a Division Bench of the said Court, however, set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge opining In our opinion, the Controlling Authority under the Act being number the appellate or the Competent Authority against the order dated 5.7.2000 passed by the CMD cum Disciplinary Authority inflicting punishment of forfeiture of gratuity against the respondent number 3 the companyments on the said order as well as interference therewith either by him or the Appellate Authority under section 7 7 of the Act is unwarranted and without jurisdiction.
The appellant is, thus, before us.
In an intra court appeal preferred by Respondent No.
By a judgment and order 13.12.2001, a learned Single Judge of the said refused to interfere therewith and dismissed the writ petition.
5957 of 2001.
1, the appellate authority held The appellant has appealed against the direction of the Controlling Authority directing to pay the gratuity to the respondent on the ground that it was beyond his jurisdiction for enter into merit of the forfeiture of the gratuity amount by the companypetent authority under Section 4 6 of the Act for the reasons mentioned therein.
16827 of 2004 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
He, therefore, filed an application before the Additional Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad for payment of gratuity on 4.01.2000.
Therefore, the order of forfeiture of gratuity of Sri J. S. Gill issued by the C.M.D. and Disciplinary Authority of CIL is number tenable.
The companytrolling authority on the said premise allowed the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter.
Arising out of SLP C No.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of the authority under the Act as also the appellate authority, a writ petition was filed by Respondent No.
A chargesheet was issued against him on the allegation of shortage of stock of companyl in Lodna area of Respondent No.
Since the matter of appeal filed by the Appellant and the respondent is against the same direction of the companytrolling authority hence both cases heard jointly and their oral argument were heard and hearing was companycluded on that date.
Appellant herein joined as a Chief General Manager.
Respondent Bharat Coking Coal Limited is a government companypany incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
Since neither the service terminated number there is anything about extent quantification of damage or loss in punishment order, question of forfeiture of gratuity does number arise as per Section 4 6 .
On the other hand the respondent had also filed an appeal about number allowing interest by the Controlling Authority for delayed payment of gratuity which is numbered as P.G. Appeal 53 /2001.
