LexSECRETARY, O.N.G.C. LTD. AND ANR. versus V.U. WARRIER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
SECRETARY, O.N.G.C. LTD. AND ANR.
v.
V.U. WARRIER
APRIL 20, 2005
[RUMA PAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]
Service Law :
Gratuity-Withholding of-Respondent-officer unauthorizedly occupied
C residential quarter allotted to him even after his retirement-Penal charges
payable by him for such unauthorized occupation-Appel/ant-employer
deducted amount towards such charges from gratuity payable to respondent-
emp/oyee-Validity of-Held, valid--Jn exercise of Regulation 5 of the 1969
Regulations, Appellant could recover its dues from any officer without his
consent from gratuity-In the facts and circumstances, the action cannot be
D said to be arbitrary, unlawful or unreasonable-High Court e"ed in interfering
under Art. 226 of the Constitution-Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Death,
Retirement and Terminal Gratuity) Regulations, 1969-Regulation 5-Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972-&ction 2(e)-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-
Ambit and scope of
E
Respondent-officer unauthorizedly occupied residential quarter
allotted to him even after his retirement. Penal charges were payable by
him for such unauthorized occupation. Appellant-employer deducted
amount towards such charges from gratuity payable to respondent-
employee. The question which arose for consideration in the present
F appeals is whether such action on part of Appellant-employer is valid.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1. Pensionary benefits, such as gratuity, cannot be said to
be 'bounty'. Gratuity is earned by an employee for long and meritorious
G service rendered by him. Ordinarily, therefore, payment of benefit of
gratuity cannot be with held by an employer. (706-D)
1.2. In the instant case, however, in exercise of statutory powers
under Section 32(1) of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959,
the Oil and Natural Gas Commissfon (Death, Retirement and Terminal
H
696
SECRETARY, O.N.G.C. LTD. v. V.U. WARRIER
697
Gratuity) Regulations, 1969 have been framed by the Appellant- A
Commission. Regulation 5 makes it clear that the Commission has right
to effect recovery of its dues from any officer without his consent from
gratuity. It cannot be said that the Commission had no right to withhold
gratuity by deducting the amount which is found 'due' to Commission
and payable by the respondent-employee towards penal charges for B
unauthorized occupation of the residential quarter allotted to him.
[706-E; 707-A-C-D]
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr.,
11975) 1 sec 421, followed.
Garment Cleaning Works v. Its Workmen, 11962) 1 SCR 711; Calcutta C
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 11967) 2 SCR 596; Jarnail Singh v.
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors., [1993) 1 SCC 47 and Wazir
Chand v. Union of India and Ors., 12001) 6 SCC 596, relied on.
R. Kapur v. Director of Jnspection(Painting & Publication) Income
Tax and Anr., [1994) 6 SCC 589 and Gorakhpur University and Anr. v. D
Sh.'/la Prasad Nagendra (Dr.) and Ors., 12001) 6 SCC 591, distinguished.
O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation ltd and
Ors., [1986) 4 SCC 337 and State of Kera/av. M Padmanabhan Nair,
[1985) 1 sec 429, referred to
2. Clause (e) of Section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act defined
"em:>loyee", from which it is clear that a person can be said to be an
"employee" if his wages did not exceed Rs.2500 per month. According to
the Commission, the salary of the respondl.!nt was more than Rs.2500
E
and hence, he could not be held "employee" covered by the definition.
Though the definition "employee" was no doubt amended subsequently F
and the provision as to amount of wages had been deleted, but the
amendment was made in 1994 and was not retrospective in nature and
thus was not applicable in the case of the respondent who retired in 1990.
1707-E-G-H, 708-Al
Union of India v. All India Services Pensioners' Association and Anr., G
11988) 2 sec 580, relied on.
3.1. The matter can be considered from another angle also. It is
well-settled that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 126 (){
the Constitution is equitable and discretionary. The power under that H
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005) 3 S.C.R.
. A Article can be exercised by the High Court "to reach injustice wherever
it is found". The facts of the present case did not deserve interference by
the High Court in exercise of equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution. (710-C; 711-C)
3.2. The respondExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.