E-Paper
Not giving gratuity to manager costs Panchkula firm dear
Company told to pay ₹3.7 lakh gratuity with 9% interest per annum; ₹15,000 as compensation for harassment and litigation charges
The district consumer disputes redressal forum has penalised a Panchkula-based firm for not remitting the gratuity to an employee.
The forum directed M/s EEE and CEE Pressings Private Limited, Phase 1, Industrial Area, Panchkula, to pay ₹3.7 lakh on account of gratuity payable to the complainant, Des Raj Rana, a resident of Sector 19, Panchkula, at 9% interest per annum.
The firm was further directed to pay Rana ₹10,000 on account of mental agony and harassment and ₹5,000 as litigation charges.
It was in April 1999, when Rana was appointed as an assistant manager in the company. He submitted his resignation in February 2018, but was relieved in April 2018.
Rana said that the last salary drawn by him was ₹34,000 per month and he was entitled for payment of gratuity as he had completed more than five years of continuous service in the company.
Rana said that despite numerous requests, the company did not remit the gratuity following which he served them a legal notice. Notice was issued to the company, but due to non-appearance of the opposite party, they were proceeded ex parte by the forum.
LIABILITY VS DEFICIENCY
Considering the facts, the forum observed that the opposite party had not appeared in the case to controvert and rebut the version of the complainant and thus, the complainant’s version would go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
“For the want of any challenge to the version of the complainant, the same is taken to have been proved. Therefore, we may safely conclude that gratuity amount as claimed by the complainant was never forfeited by the opposite party. Thus, we find no justification on the part of the opposite party to withhold the payment of gratuity amount as claimed by the complainant,” the forum observed.
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on part of the opposite party while not releasing the amount of gratuity; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief,” the forum ruled.
