The High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. The Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Asst. Labour Commissioner (central ) Hyderabad. The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Yellandu Area, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist. K. Laxmi (styling as Padmavathi ), Stylin_g qs W/o tatg l-.( Ravindar Aged about 48 years ilo-H.nlo.S-9-150 nehru iiagar, Pakal road, Yellandu, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist. -507 123

4. The Government of lndia, Finance Department,New Delhi. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ or direction preferably Writ of mandamus, declaring the order dt.14t6t2}21 passed by the respondent no.1 in P.G. Application no.4Ai4St2O2O-E2 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the order dt.14l6l2D21 passed by the respondent rro.1 in P.G. Application no.48l45l2O2O-E2 pending the disposal of writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1&4: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Gounsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI ANIRUDH SADHU The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION o.13981 of 2fJ22 ORDER: Heard Sri K. Pavan Kumar, Iearned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 4, Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned standing counset appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 and Sri Anirudh Sadhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3. 2 The o titioner aDD oached this Court seeki no the oraver as under: "To issue Writ or Direction preferably Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order dt.14.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 in P.G. Application no.48145 /2O2O- E2 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner's late father K. Ravinder was an employee working as General Mazdoor in Singareni Collieries Company Limited' The father of the petitioner, during the tenure of his service recorded the 2 sN,, name of 'Padmavathi' as nominee, and also mentioned the names ol' his children, the petitioner, Tapaswi, and two others. The petitioner's mother Chandrakala @ Padmavathi is the only wife of the petitioner's late father. However when one lady by name K.-axmi (Respondent No.3 herein) started styling herself as "Padnravathi" wife of the petitioner's late father and claiming benefits along with children i.e., K. Ajay Kumar and K. Aswin, the petitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.23 of 2018 on the file of lr:arned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and seeking allotment of U4th share in LIC, Gratuity, Provident Fund and oth(:r terminal benefits and the learned Principal Senior Civil Jude, Kothagudem vide order dated 02.02.2018 in I.A.No.33 of 2018 in O.S.No.23 of 2018, granted an order of status quo. It is further the case of the petitioner that despite notice of order of status quo granted by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, l(othagudem in I.A.No.33 of 2018 in O.S.No.23 of 2018 dated 02.02.2018, the respondent No.3 approached the 1't respondent by filing petition vide P.G. Application No.+e1z-512920-E2 without furnishing clear facts and sought release of Gratuity amount to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and by an orde:r dated 14.06.202L, the 1't respondent issued an order directing the 2nd respondent to release the said gratuity amount J *r-t !93 r_2022 SN,' which is ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED E RECORD:- ON AND CONC USION:- DISCU 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the vacate stay petitioner/3'd respondent contends that the interim orders passed by this Court dated 22.03.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in the present writ petition need to be vacated and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed since the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 14.06.2021 passed in P.G. Application No.4a/45/2O20-E2 by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Hyderabad was an order passed in accordance to law and hence no interference by this Court is warranted. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the vacate stay petitioner/3'd respondent further contends that as per Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, No gratuity payable under this Act and no gratuity payable to an employee employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop exempted under section shall be liable to 4 sN., attachm(:nt in execution of any decree or order or any civil, revenue or criminal court, and therefore the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner needs to be vacated and the writ petil:ion needs to be dismissed.

6. It is the specific case of the 3d respondent that the 3rd respondr:nt is the wife of late K. Ravindar and in the records of the 2nd respondent, the 3.d respondent Aadhaar Card, pan Card, Election ID and Andhra Bank, Bank passbook had been filed in support of their evidence and therefore in view of the fact that the 3d respondent is the legally wedded wife of late K. Ravinder as per the above documents filed by the 3.d respondent before the Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, t972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Hyderabad, the case filr:d' by the concerned Authority seeking payment of gratuity had been allowed in favour of the 3.d respondent directing; the respondent company to release the gratuity amount to the 3'd respondent herein as per Form R within 30 days from the datt: of receipt of this order and the same had not been impleme:nted as on date in view of the interim orders of this Court arrd therefore, f, 1 e indicates that the vts ntn the act \ 5 wp_t398r_2022 sN,., withholdinq the gratuitv for non vacation of the Companies quartef, this Court opines that there are no merits in the oresent writ netition and the interim orders oranted bv this Court on 22.03.2O22 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2O22 in the oresent W.P.No.13981 of 2O22 stands vacated and the writ oetition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if oflY, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed S S. MALLIKARJUNA STANT REGI /ffRUE CO il SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI KOWTURU PAVAN One CC to SRIANIRUDH SADHU, One CC to SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR loPUcl cI loPUcI One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDIA [OPUC] $t I I I I i ,i t , l ! l Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 4

5. PMK GJP HIGH COURT DATED'i2610912025 CC TODAY )* .t I t.E S () L) * 1 5 A?fi ?ij?t (:] " _li -d**' {. .r-i,' ;'.;1,t L, .,rt'' ORDER WP.No.I3981 of 2A22 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHO{..IT COSTS \5