JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the finding of the respondent no. 2- Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hazaribagh-cum-Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short “the Act, 1972”) dated 13.09.2006 in Case No.36(73) of 2006 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent no.-1. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 29.12.2006 passed by the respondent no. 3- the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad-cum-Appellate Authority under the Act, 1972 in PG Appeal No.27 of 2006 whereby the appeal preferred by petitioner against decision of the respondent no.-2 has been dismissed. 2. The factual matrix of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent no.1 was working as a Foreman at Swang Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) and he was allotted a company quarter. He retired from service of the petitioner on 31.01.2004. The management calculated the amount of gratuity payable to the respondent no. 1 and directed him to vacate the company’s quarter and to collect the gratuity amount which was lying with the management. The respondent no. 1 did not respond to the said direction and continued to remain in occupation of the said quarter. After a much delay, the respondent no. 1 filed an application for release of the gratuity amount. The respondent no. 2 passed an order dated 13.09.2006 directing the petitioner management to pay the gratuity amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent no. 1. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal being PG Appeal No. 27 of 2006 under section 7 of the Act, 1972 and also deposited the entire amount ordered to be paid in terms with the Proviso to sub-section (7) of section 7 of the Act, 1972 before the respondent no. 3 contending therein that the respondent no. 1 is liable to pay penal rent @ Rs.6.25 per sq.feet per month after 30.04.2004 and accordingly a sum of Rs.1,46,378/- is payable by the respondent no. 1 towards the penal rent. However, the respondent no.3 vide order dated 29.12.2006 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner affirming the order passed by the respondent no.2. 3. Mr. A.K.Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that even after the direction of the petitioner management to vacate the quarter, the respondent no. 1 towards the penal rent. However, the respondent no.3 vide order dated 29.12.2006 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner affirming the order passed by the respondent no.2. 3. Mr. A.K.Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that even after the direction of the petitioner management to vacate the quarter, the respondent no. 1 continued to remain in unauthorized occupation of the said quarter and hence as per the company’s rules, the respondent no. 1 was liable to pay penal rent alongwith electricity and water charges @ Rs.6.25 per sq.feet per month. It is further submitted that in catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have held that the management is entitled to adjust penal rent against the gratuity payable to the employee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Secretary, ONGC Ltd. & Another Vs. V.U. Warrier reported in (2005) 5 SCC 245 , Wazir Chand Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 596 and Regional Director, ONGC and Anr. Vs. A.S. Iyer and Ors. reported in (2010) 15 SCC 419 . 5. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. The main argument of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the courts below failed to appreciate the fact that in spite of the direction of the petitioner management, the respondent no. 1 did not vacate the quarter and as such he was liable to pay the penal rent to be deducted from the amount of gratuity payable to him. 7. I have carefully perused the provisions of the Act, 1972. The aim and object of the Act, 1972 clearly manifest that the legislature was conscious of the fact that the gratuity amount should not be withheld for any reason except those specifically incorporated in the Act, 1972 itself. The Act, 1972 is a welfare legislation and the gratuity cannot be withheld by the employer for non-vacation of a quarter by the employee. Payment of gratuity is not a charity but the responsibility cast on the employer by statute. 8. Moreover, sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Act, 1972 also provides for payment of interest on non-payment of gratuity. Payment of gratuity is not a charity but the responsibility cast on the employer by statute. 8. Moreover, sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Act, 1972 also provides for payment of interest on non-payment of gratuity. The said provision is quoted as under :- “(3-A) 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 of this ground.” 9. In the present case, the petitioner management did not initiate any proceeding for eviction of the respondent no.1 from the quarter in question and kept waiting for years together by withholding gratuity amount of the respondent no. 1. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be against the aim and object of the Act, 1972. Thus, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for payment of gratuity amount along with interest at the prevailing rate in terms with Section 7(3-A) of the Act, 1972. 10. So far as charging of penal rent for occupation of the quarter by the respondent no.1 even after his retirement is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has put reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, ONGC Ltd. & Another Vs. V.U. Warrier (supra). In the said case, the Honb’le Supreme Court has held that the employer can adjust the penal rent against the amount of gratuity payable to the employee in terms of the rules. 11. Further in the case of Wazir Chand (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under- “These appeals are directed against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant, who happens to be a retired railway servant. Admittedly, the appellant even after superannuation continued to occupy the government quarters, though being placed under hard circumstances. Further in the case of Wazir Chand (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under- “These appeals are directed against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant, who happens to be a retired railway servant. Admittedly, the appellant even after superannuation continued to occupy the government quarters, though being placed under hard circumstances. For such continuance, the Government, in accordance with rules, has charged penal rent from the retired government servant, and after adjusting the dues of the Government, the balance amount of the gratuity, which was payable, has been offered to be paid, as noted in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appellant's main contention is that in view of the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal against which the Union of India had approached this Court and the special leave application was dismissed as withdrawn, it was the bounden duty of the Union of India not to withhold any gratuity amount and, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to the said gratuity amount on the date of retirement, and that not having been paid, he is also entitled to interest thereon. We are unable to accept this prayer of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The appellant having unauthorisedly occupied the government quarters was liable to pay the penal rent in accordance with rules and, therefore, there is no illegality in those dues being adjusted against the death-cum-retirement dues of the appellant. We, therefore, see no illegality in the impugned order which requires our interference. The appeals stand dismissed.” 12. In the case of Regional Director, ONGC and Anr. Vs. A.S. Iyer and Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “4. As far as the first issue is concerned, the High Court held that while rent could be deducted from the gratuity, the penal rent could not be deducted. In view of this Court's decision in ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier [ (2005) 5 SCC 245 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 676] this conclusion of the High Court must be held to be wrong. It was open to ONGC to deduct the penal rent from the gratuity payable to the respondent.” 13. In view of this Court's decision in ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier [ (2005) 5 SCC 245 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 676] this conclusion of the High Court must be held to be wrong. It was open to ONGC to deduct the penal rent from the gratuity payable to the respondent.” 13. It would thus be evident that in the aforesaid cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the penal rent for unauthorized occupation of the government quarter can be adjusted against the amount of gratuity payable to the employee in accordance with the rules. 14. In the case in hand, though for non-payment of gratuity, the petitioner is liable to pay interest over the principal amount of gratuity in view of Section 7 (3-A) of the Act, 1972, yet the respondent no.1 is equally liable for payment of penal interest for occupying the official quarter even after his superannuation, as per the rules of the Company, which can be deducted from the accrued amount of gratuity payable to him. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to calculate the gratuity amount of the respondent no.1 with applicable interest in terms with sub-section (3-A) of section 7 of the Act, 1972 and after adjusting the penal rent for unauthorized occupation of the quarter in terms with the rules of the company against the accrued amount of gratuity payable to the respondent no. 1, to pay the remaining amount to the respondent no.1 within 45 days from the date of the order. The respondent no.1 is also directed to vacate the quarter, if not vacated by now, within one month from the date of payment of the aforesaid amount by the petitioner. 16. The order dated 13.09.2006 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Case No.36(73) of 2006 and the order dated 29.12.2006 passed by the respondent no. 3 in PG Appeal No.27 of 2006 are modified to the above extent. 17. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.