ORDER Petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.2.2007 (Annexure-3) passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad (Respondent No. 2) in Application No. 36/22/2006.E.6, whereby the petitioner’s claim for interest on gratuity amount, has been rejected. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 27.9.2007 (Annexure-5) passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad (Respondent No. 1) in Case No. PG Appeal / (16).2007, whereby the petitioner’s appeal preferred against the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, was dismissed. 2. Questions raised in this writ application, are as follows: 1.Whether the impugned orders are wholly unlawful, unjust, improper and without authority of law? 2.Whether the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for interest due to nonpayment of gratuity in time in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and Rules framed thereunder? 3.Whether the plea of retention of quarter is misconceived and misleading and could have been accepted as a ground for rejection of the petitioner’s claim for payment of statutory interest on the gratuity? 4.Whether non-payment of interest on the gratuity is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India? 3. The facts of the petitioner’s case, stated briefly, are as follows: The petitioner was a permanent employee of the respondent BCCL and after completing 33 years 05 months in service, he retired on 28.02.2005 from the post of Accounts Assistant while posted in the Central Hospital, Dhanbad under the respondent no. 3. The petitioner was expecting payment of his gratuity amount along with his retiral dues, but the same was not paid promptly and after a lapse of more than nine months from the date of his retirement, on 1.12.2005 he was given two cheques amounting to Rs. 2,89,808/-, though the cheques were drawn in the month of July 2005 and November 2005 respectively. About seven months thereafter, on 4.7.2006, a further sum of Rs. 10,404/-being the balance amount of gratuity, was paid to him. 4. Being aggrieved by the delay of more than sixteen months from the date of his superannuation, the petitioner demanded interest payable on the gratuity amount from his employer. Finding no response to his demand, the petitioner filed an application under section 7(2) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the respondent no. 4. Being aggrieved by the delay of more than sixteen months from the date of his superannuation, the petitioner demanded interest payable on the gratuity amount from his employer. Finding no response to his demand, the petitioner filed an application under section 7(2) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the respondent no. 2, Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad on 4.7.2006. The application was registered as Application No. 36/22/2006 E.6. 5. In the aforesaid proceeding, the respondent employer had filed a written statement, denying the petitioner’s claim on the ground that though, payment of the gratuity amount was delayed, but such delay was not on account of the employer. Rather, it was on account of the petitioner’s failure to produce “No Dues Certificate”. 6. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of the respondent no. 2, was rejected by the respondent no. 1 by the impugned order (Annexure-5). 7. The petitioner’s claim was rejected by the respondent no. 2 solely on the ground that the delay in payment of the gratuity amount was occasioned on account of fault of the petitioner due to non-submission of “No Dues Certificate” and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of any interest on the delayed payments of the gratuity amount. The Appellate Authority has also confirmed the aforesaid finding of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. 8. Assailing the impugned orders, the petitioner, who has appeared in person, raises inter-alia, the following grounds: I.The petitioner had retired from service on 28.02.2005. Prior to the date of his retirement, it was intimated to him that the amount of his gratuity was assessed at Rs. 2,89,808/-on the basis of NCWA-VI. Subsequently, pursuant to the revision of wages as per the NCWA-VII, a further amount of Rs. 10,404/-was assessed as payable towards gratuity. II.As per the provisions of section 7(3) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the amount of gratuity was to be paid to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of his retirement and if the amount of gratuity is not paid within the statutory period of thirty days, then such amount shall carry interest which the employer has to pay. III.Admittedly, the first amount was paid after the delay of nine months from the date of his retirement and the second amount was paid on 4.7.2006. III.Admittedly, the first amount was paid after the delay of nine months from the date of his retirement and the second amount was paid on 4.7.2006. The plea taken by the respondents that the delay was caused due to the petitioner’s own fault due to non-submission of “No Dues Certificate” on account of retention of company’s quarters, is totally misleading and incorrect. As per Circular dated 7.3.2005 issued by the Personnel Directorate of BCCL, payment of gratuity amount cannot be withheld merely because of the retired employee’s continuous occupation of the company’s quarter. The Circular lays down that employer may retain a sum of Rs. 50,000/-out of nonstatutory dues such as Leave Encashment, LTC, LTTC and arrears of salary and if the non-statutory dues are not sufficient enough to one’s credit, the gratuity amount payable to the employee concerned should be deposited with the Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, after retaining the total non-statutory dues. IV.Though, petitioner had retained company’s quarters even after his retirement, but upon demand, he had paid the penal rent for the quarter, till the time he remained in occupation. V.The respondent’s claim that they had forwarded Form-L to the petitioner on 22.6.2005, informing him thereby that the gratuity amount of Rs. 2,58,885/-was released for payment and that the petitioner did not collect the same, is totally misleading and incorrect. The Form-L was virtually a blank form without mentioning the cheque number and date and the petitioner could not possibly collect the cheque from the Accounts Department on the basis of incomplete information. 9. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent BCCL. Denying and disputing the claim of the petitioner, the respondent had reiterated the same grounds as raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) and Regional Labour Commissioner (Respondent No. 1). It is sought to be explained by the learned counsel for the respondents that prior to the date of the petitioner’s retirement, the amount of gratuity payable to him was duly sanctioned and the petitioner was intimated about such sanction being made in his favour with a condition that he should submit his “No Dues Certificate”. Such demand was made due to the fact that the petitioner continued to occupy the company’s quarter. Despite such notice, the petitioner did not submit his “No Dues Certificate”. The cheque for payment of the gratuity amount of Rs. Such demand was made due to the fact that the petitioner continued to occupy the company’s quarter. Despite such notice, the petitioner did not submit his “No Dues Certificate”. The cheque for payment of the gratuity amount of Rs. 2,58,885/-was prepared on 19.3.2005 and the petitioner was informed about the same and was asked to collect the same from the office of the employer. Objection has also been taken on the maintainability of the writ application on the ground that since there are concurrent findings of facts, both by Assistant Labour Commissioner as well as by the Appellate Authority, this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot possibly go into the question of facts. 10. From the rival submissions, the admitted facts which emerge are: I.The total amount of gratuity was assessed and payable to the petitioner, on the date of his retirement, was assessed at Rs. 2,89,808/-. This amount was paid on 1.12.2005 i.e. after lapse of nine months from the date of his retirement. II.A further amount of Rs. 10,404/-assessed as payable to the petitioner towards gratuity pursuant to the revision of wages, was paid to him on 4.7.2006, though such revision in wages was made pursuant to the NCWA-VII in the month of July 2005. III.The reason assigned by the employer for the delay in payment is that the petitioner had not submitted his ‘No Dues Certificate” which was required of him on account of his continued occupation of the company’s quarters even after his retirement. 11. Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, stipulates that the gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years, or on his superannuation or on his retirement or resignation or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. Thus, the gratuity is payable to the employee on the date of his superannuation. 12.Section 7(3) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 reads as follows: “The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable”. Thus, the gratuity is payable to the employee on the date of his superannuation. 12.Section 7(3) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 reads as follows: “The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable”. Sub-section (3-A) of section 7 reads as follows: “If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section(3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify”. Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the Controlling Authority for the delayed payment on this ground”. 13. It is manifest from the above that the amount of gratuity has to be paid by the employer within thirty days from the date when it becomes payable to the employee and if, the payment is not made within thirty days, then the employer shall pay simple interest on the same, till the date of payment. The employer may not be called upon to pay such interest for delayed payment if it is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the Controlling Authority for the delayed payment on this ground. From the reading of the provisions of section 7 of the Act, it would be further manifest that the employer cannot, in any circumstance, retain the amount of gratuity with itself. If the payment of gratuity is delayed on account of the employee’s fault, then the employer shall have to intimate such delay to the Controlling Authority and deposit the entire amount of credit with the Controlling Authority. 14. From the admitted facts of this case, the employer has wanted to find fault with the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted “No Dues Certificate” in respect of the company’s quarter allotted to him. 14. From the admitted facts of this case, the employer has wanted to find fault with the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted “No Dues Certificate” in respect of the company’s quarter allotted to him. 15.As observed above, the provision of section 7 of the Act does not stipulate that the payment of gratuity can be withheld by the employer if the retired employee continues to remain in occupation of the employer’s quarter. This mandate of law has been acknowledged and emphasized by the Circular (Annexure-2) dated 7.3.2005 issued by the Management of the respondent BCCL, which lays down guidelines in respect of payment of gratuity amount in cases where the employee of the company continues to reside in the company’s quarters after his superannuation. The Circular categorically declares that the gratuity amount shall be released to the employee in accordance with the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act and the employer can at best retain a sum of Rs. 50,000/-out of non-statutory dues payable to the employees and if such non-statutory dues are not sufficient enough to employee’s credit, the gratuity amount payable to the employee concerned shall have to be deposited with the Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, after retaining total non-statutory dues. Furthermore, even though, the petitioner had continued to occupy the company’s quarter after his retirement, but as per Rules of his employer, he had paid penal rent for the occupation of the quarter. 16.From the above facts, it is apparent that the retention of the company’s quarter could not have been taken as a plea or ground for withholding payment of the gratuity amount to the petitioner. The insistence of the respondent company that due to the petitioner’s continued occupation of the company’s quarter even after his retirement, his gratuity amount was withheld, is apparently arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. The petitioner cannot be accused of having caused the delay in payment of the gratuity amount to him. As a result of the obstinate stand taken by the Respondent, the petitioner was compelled to seek redressal of his grievance incurring expenditure through legal proceedings. The petitioner cannot be accused of having caused the delay in payment of the gratuity amount to him. As a result of the obstinate stand taken by the Respondent, the petitioner was compelled to seek redressal of his grievance incurring expenditure through legal proceedings. 17.It appears from the impugned orders that both the authorities namely, the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority had rejected the petitioner’s claim only on the ground that the delay in payment of gratuity was on account of his retention of the company’s quarter and non-submission of “No Dues Certificate”. Neither of the authorities have taken into consideration the statutory demands under section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Company’s own Circular dated 7.3.2005. There is thus apparent perversity in the impugned orders and on this ground, both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Since, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the employer either for the delay in payment of the gratuity amount or for non-deposit of the gratuity amount with the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the employer is liable to pay statutory interest on the gratuity amount to the petitioner for the period of delay in making payment. Petitioner’s claim therefore, is legitimate and genuine. Petitioner is entitled to claim and receive interest on the amount of gratuity of Rs. 2,89,808/-from the date it was payable to him and till the date of final payment. As regards interest on the amount of Rs. 10,404/-, it appears that the wage revision was approved pursuant to the NCWAVII in the month of July 2005, but the arrears on account of the revised wage was to be paid only in the month of July 2006 and accordingly, the difference amount has been paid to the petitioner in July 2006 itself. Therefore, there appears no delay in payment of this amount, the petitioner cannot claim any interest on the same. 18.In the light of the above discussions, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, both the impugned orders, as contained in (Annexure-3) and Annexure-5), are hereby quashed. The respondent BCCL is directed to pay interest, as specified under section 7(3)(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, on the amount of 2,89,808/-calculated from the date when the amount was payable and till the date of final payment, made to the petitioner. Accordingly, both the impugned orders, as contained in (Annexure-3) and Annexure-5), are hereby quashed. The respondent BCCL is directed to pay interest, as specified under section 7(3)(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, on the amount of 2,89,808/-calculated from the date when the amount was payable and till the date of final payment, made to the petitioner. Payment, as directed above, shall be made to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this application is allowed with cost of Rs. 20,000/-to be deposited by the Respondents in favour of the petitioner, within one month of the date of this order.