Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 269 (MP)

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra Kumar Sharma

2025-04-09

MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

body2025
ORDER Phadke, J. -- 1. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. 2. The instant writ appeal under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is arising out of an order dated 11.8.2023 passed Writ Court in W.P. No.19382/2023, whereby an innocuous order directing the respondent No.5, Collector therein to execute the RRC dated 17.4.2023 within four months from the date of its submission alongwith certified copy of the said order by the petitioner before him was passed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/State while assailing the aforesaid order has contended that the order passed by the Writ Court vide Annexure A/1 was with regard to execution of RRC dated 17.4.2023 and the said order was not within the knowledge of appellants, since no notices were issued, thus, there was no occasion for the appellants to put the original facts before this Court, thus, the findings are totally perverse based on surmises and conjectures, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 4. It was further argued that the writ Court has failed to consider that the appellants had filed an appeal before the appellate authority, though the same was dismissed for want of procedural lacuna, as the appellants have failed to deposit the requisite amount for filing appeal due to lack of administrative sanction and as the appellants are in the process of acquiring permission for depositing the requisite amount, so that the appeal filed by them before the Appellate Authority could be restored and heard on merits but during the said period the impugned order came to be passed by the writ Court, which in the circumstances deserves to be quashed. 5. Agitating the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants/State submitted that the respondent/employee had filed a case at Bhopal and had taken all his legal recourse at Bhopal but surprisingly had filed the writ petition before this Court and had succeeded in getting direction for implementation of RRC and further had filed contempt petition bearing No.2775/2024, which for lack of territorial jurisdiction could not have been entertained by this Court. 6. 6. It was lastly, submitted that upon receiving the notice of contempt for the first time, the aforesaid case came to the knowledge of the appellants/State and immediately thereafter the appeal was preferred before the appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but due to lack of deposit of requisite amount the appeal got dismissed and now the appellants/State are trying to get proper sanction for depositing the amount and getting the appeal restored and are making every endevour to get the appeal heard on merits, therefore, the order of execution of RRC passed by the learned writ Court deserves to be stayed till final decision of the appeal before the appellate authority. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants/State, this Court finds that on 22.11.2021 an application in case No.82/2019 was preferred by the present respondent/employee before the Court of Controlling Authority of Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal for payment of gratuity, which was allowed and appellants/State was directed to pay gratuity amount of Rs.4,32,518/- in addition to Rs.7,44,188/- and interest thereupon of Rs.1,08,129/-, thus, totaling to Rs.5,40,647/- as per provision of section 7(3) of the Act of 1972. 8. Against the said order, the department has preferred an appeal bearing case No.20/2022 before the Controlling Authority of Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Deputy Labor Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal (M.P.), but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20.1.2023 on the ground of non-deposition of the awarded amount as per sub-section 7 of section 7 of Gratuity Act, 1972. 9. Thereafter, the Court of Controlling Authority issued an order to the Collector Bhopal to issue RRC in the above said case vide its letter dated 17.4.2023 under the Gratuity of Payment Act 1972 and letter dated 17.4.2023 issued by the Assistant Labor Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal. 10. When RRC issued to the Collector was not executed, then the present respondent/employee had filed a writ petition No.19382/2023 before this Court and this Court vide impugned order directed the Collector, Bhopal to get the RRC executed. 11. Even when directions were issued by this Court since the Collector had not executed the said RRC, a contempt petition bearing No.2775/2024 was filed by the present respondent/employee. 12. 11. Even when directions were issued by this Court since the Collector had not executed the said RRC, a contempt petition bearing No.2775/2024 was filed by the present respondent/employee. 12. After getting knowledge of the contempt proceedings the appellants/State had preferred another appeal No.68/2025 before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which is pending consideration. 13. The ground taken by the appellants/State that since the appeal is pending consideration against the original order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, therefore, till the appeal is finally decided the orders passed by the Controlling Authority for issuing of RRC as well as order of this Court directing the Collector to execute the said RRC, be kept in abeyance. 14. This Court finds that on earlier occasion, the appellants/State had preferred an appeal against the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by Controlling Authority in case No.82/2019, whereby a sum of Rs.5,40,647/- was directed to be paid to the respondent under provisions of section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The said appeal got dismissed vide order dated 20.1.2023 since the requisite amount, which was required to be deposited under section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, was not made and now again another appeal has been preferred, in which there is no interim order. 15. Since in the said appeal there is no interim order, nor it appears that some application has been preferred for seeking any interim relief, thus, mere filing of an appeal would not be of any consequence. Even otherwise, the original order passed by the Controlling Authority dated 22.11.2021 still exists and has not been varied or cancelled by any of the authority, therefore, the very appeal appears to be without any sum and substance. 16. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.