Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 417 (MP)

Amir Gul v. Mohsin Khan

2017-03-28

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ms. Vandana Kasrekar, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 06/12/2016 passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 2. Deceased -Shahjad Gul was working on the post of Driver in Ghorawari Colliery of Western Coalfields Limited in Kanhan Area. He died on 24/01/2014 while he was in service. Deceased-Shahjad Gul was unmarried and died intestate. The petitioners and respondents No.3 to 6 are the brothers and sisters of the deceased whereas respondent No.1-Mohsin Khan is the nephew of the deceased. As the deceased- Shahjad Gul was in the service of Western Coalfields Limited, he was entitled for certain retiral benefits and in the event of his death during employment, his family members were entitled for the same. However, after death of the deceased-Shahjad Gul, the amount payable to him under the service rules was not paid to any one. When the petitioners and other brothers, sisters contacted the office of the Western Coalfields Limited for settlement of retiral dues, they were advised by the authorities of the Western Coalfields Limited to obtain succession certificate from the competent Court of law. Accordingly, the petitioners and other brothers and sisters filed an application before the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class- I, Chhindwara praying to issue succession certificate in their favour. In the meanwhile, the company deposited an amount of Rs.6,60,772/- towards the gratuity payable to the deceased - Shahjad Gul before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chhindwara. During pendency of the succession case before the Civil Court, respondent No.1 filed an application before the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chhindwara claiming that since deceased had filled and produced the nomination form in the department mentioning him as sole nominee of the amount of gratuity, he is entitled for the gratuity amount, therefore, the said amount be disbursed to him. 3. The Controlling Authority heard the case and passed the order dated 30/05/2016 and stayed the proceeding till decision of the cases pending in the various Courts. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Controlling Authority, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the appellate authority. 3. The Controlling Authority heard the case and passed the order dated 30/05/2016 and stayed the proceeding till decision of the cases pending in the various Courts. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Controlling Authority, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority passed an order dated 06/12/2016 thereby allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 and set aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority holding that as the deceased has nominated respondent No.1 as his nominee to receive the gratuity amount, therefore, the gratuity amount be disbursed to him. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the appellate authority is bad and illegal. He further submitted that when the matter is sub-judice before the Civil Court for grant of succession certificate, then the appellate authority ought not to have interfered in the matter. He also submitted that the jurisdiction to decide the question of legal heirs and representatives lies with the Civil Court and not the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. He contended that the petitioners and other brothers and sisters of the deceased were advised by the company to produce succession certificate for getting the amount payable to the deceased and, therefore, the petitioners and other brothers and sisters have submitted an application for issuance of succession certificate before the Civil Court which is pending and in the light of these facts, the appellate authority has no jurisdiction or power to interfere in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Smt. Sarbati Devi and another v. Smt. Usha Devi reported in (1984) 1 SCC 424 as well as Shsreya Vidyarthi v. Ashok Vidyarthi and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 139 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents who appears on caveat, supports the order passed by the appellate authority. He submitted that there is nomination in favour of respondent No.1 by the deceased-Shahjad Gul in respect of the gratuity payment, therefore, on the basis of the nomination, respondent No.1 is entitled to receive the gratuity amount. He further submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the gratuity claim. He submitted that there is nomination in favour of respondent No.1 by the deceased-Shahjad Gul in respect of the gratuity payment, therefore, on the basis of the nomination, respondent No.1 is entitled to receive the gratuity amount. He further submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the gratuity claim. The civil suit is also barred by the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act as the disputes relate to Payment of Gratuity Act are to be adjudicated by the Controlling Authority appointed under Section 3 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and Section 14 of this Act has overriding effect over the other enactments. Thus, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter related to payment of gratuity and this is an special enactment to deal with the dispute relates to Payment of Gratuity Act. In light of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellate authority has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta and others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 680 as well as Vindhyadhari and others v. Sukhrana Bai and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 238 . 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the order passed by the appellate authority. Deceased-Shahjad Gul was working on the post of Driver in the Ghorawari Colliery of Western Coalfields Limited in Kanhan Area. He expired on 24/01/2014 while in service. Deceased was unmarried and died intestate. Petitioners and respondents No.3 to 6 are brothers and sisters of the deceased whereas respondent No.1 is nephew of the deceased. The petitioners and other brothers and sisters after death of the deceased have approached to the Company for releasing the amount which is payable to the deceased, however, the company has refused to pay them and directed to produce succession certificate. Accordingly, the petitioners and other brothers and sisters filed application before the 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Chhindwara for issuance of succession certificate in their favour. In the meanwhile, the company has deposited amount of Rs.6,60,772/- towards gratuity before the Controlling Authority. Accordingly, the petitioners and other brothers and sisters filed application before the 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Chhindwara for issuance of succession certificate in their favour. In the meanwhile, the company has deposited amount of Rs.6,60,772/- towards gratuity before the Controlling Authority. As the deceased has made nomination in respect of gratuity amount in favour of respondent No.1, he, therefore, filed an application before the Controlling Authority for payment of the said amount. The Controlling Authority has passed an order dated 30/05/2016 and has directed respondent No.2 to produce the succession certificate. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Controlling Authority, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide order dated 06/12/2016 has set aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority and directed that there is a nomination in favour of respondent No.1 by the deceased and, therefore, he is entitled to receive the gratuity amount. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 7. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the appellate authority, it reveals that the appellate authority has held that the deceased had nominated respondent No.1 to receive the amount of gratuity. The appellate authority has further held that under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Controlling Authority is fully competent to decide who is entitled to receive the gratuity payable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the gratuity claim. It has further been observed by the appellate authority that Payment of Gratuity Act is a special enactment and as per Section 14 of the said Act, this Act has overriding effect over other enactments. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Shipra Sengupta (supra) in para-18 has held as under : "18. In view of the clear legal position, it is made abundantly clear that the amount under any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with the law of succession governing them. In other words, nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. In view of the clear legal position, it is made abundantly clear that the amount under any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with the law of succession governing them. In other words, nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. In the instant case the amounts so received are to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956." In the said judgment, the Apex Court has held that the amount under any head can be received by the nominee and the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law of succession governing them. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, respondent No.1 is entitled to receive the amount of gratuity and the petitioners and other brothers and sisters can claim the amount of deceased in accordance with law of succession governing them i.e. after getting succession certificate in favour of them by the trial Court. 9. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the same are not applicable in the present case. 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any error committed by the appellate authority while passing the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition has no force, therefore, the same is dismissed without any order as to cost.