BEFORE THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDE THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY

ACT, ROHTAK AREA ROHTAK

Balwan Versus M/s Pavit Industries

Reply on behalf of respondent

Respected Sir,

The respondent respectfully submits as under:-

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1. That the applicant has got no right to file the present petition under payment of

Gratuity Act. He has already been paid all the benefits for which he was entitled to as

per law.

2. That admittedly the unit M/s Pavit Industries was closed down by the

Management and services of all the 14 workers were retrenched in accordance with law

and the provision of Industrial Dispute Act after giving due intimation to the State

Government as required. The offer was made to the present applicant also but he

refused to accept the retrenchment compensation.

3. That the services of the applicant has come to an end on 18.05.2012 and the

present petition has been filed after a period of more than three years which is highly

time barred as per the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act, as such the same is liable

to be dismissed.

4. That the applicant has not appeared before this Hon’ble Authority with clean hands

and he has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Authority while filing the

application. It is submitted here that M/s Pavit Industries was being run by Late Sh.

Ram Tirath Madan since the very inception of the said unit way back in the year 1979.

He expired on 26.8.2010. After his death his family was not in a position to run the said

industry/unit as no member of the family was having any experience in that field and

further there was no work pending with the unit and further there were no orders to

execute with the factory and the factory was suffering the financial losses for the last

about three financial years, as such the family members of late Sh. Ram Tirath Madan

decided to close down the said unit. A notice in this regard was duly given to the
appropriate Government/Labour Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh as required

under section 25FF(a) of Industrial Dispute Act through Smt. Pushpa Madan widow of

late Sh. Ram Tirath Madan on 2.4.2012. A copy of the said notice was also forwarded to

the labour cum conciliation officer, Rohtak, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Rohtak and

Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak for information and necessary action at their end. The

said period had expired on 2.6.2012. In this way, the legal requirement as required

under I.D. Act to close down the unit / factory has been fulfilled. After the service of

notice, the services of the workmen including the applicant had been retrenched by

paying them the retrenchment compensation as per the relevant provisions of section

25F(b) of Industrial Dispute Act i.e. 15 days salary per year of service of the workman

alongwith one month salary in lieu of notice and also the balance salary of ten days i.e.

from 1.5.2012 to 10.5.2012 total amounting to Rs.43333.33/-. The said amount was

sent to the applicant by way of cheque No.877469 dated 9.5.2012 drawn on HDFC

Bank branch at Model Town, Rohtak through registered post and as per the entitlement

of the workman on 10.5.2012 under intimation to the Labour cum Conciliation Officer,

Rohtak, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Rohtak and Labour Commissioner, Haryana,

Chandigarh through registered post alongwith necessary documents. But the said

registered letter had been received back with the endorsement of the postman

concerned that the addressee has refused to accept the same. In this way, the applicant

himself was at fault. Thereafter, the applicant initially approached the Labour cum

Conciliation Officer by filing the demand notice and then this case was referred to the

Labour Court, Rohtak under reference No.40 of 2012 which has been decided by the

Court of Shri Sudhir Jiwan, the then learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Rohtak which has been answered in favour of the Management and it

has been held under issue No.1 that the services of the applicant/workman has been

retrenched by offering him the due retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F of

Industrial Dispute Act. Further, it has been observed that the workman has failed to

make out any case of violation of any provision of the I.D.Act. However, the workman

was held entitled and at liberty to claim the retrenchment compensation of Rs.37050/-

from the Management respondent. The said award was passed on 31.8.2015. The

copy of the same is enclosed herewith. The applicant has the intention to harass the
respondent Management since very beginning and he is filing the cases one after the

other to get the undue benefit. He had also instituted a civil suit for permanent

injunction against the respondent seeking the decree that he shall be restrained from

alienating the property of the industry M/s Pavit Industry. The said civil suit was also

dismissed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rohtak and now by

concealing all these facts, he has filed the present case just to harass and to get the

undue benefit for which he is not otherwise entitled to. Since, the services of the

workman has been retrenched as per relevant provisions of law/Industrial Dispute Act,

therefore, he is not entitled for any relief as is being claimed by him by way of present

case. The answering respondent as a good will gesture has complied with the relevant

provision of law and has retrenched the services of the workman but the workman had

unnecessarily filed the applications before the authorities just to put pressure upon the

answering respondent.

5. That after the passing of the Award the applicant has moved an application

before the Labour cum Conciliation Officer where also he insisted for the payment of

gratuity but only the amount for which he was entitled to was given to him

On Merits:
1. That the contents of para No.1 of the application as stated are wrong, hence

denied. It is wrong to allege that the applicant/workman has always performed his duties

quite satisfactory and never given any chance of any complaint during the course of his

employment.

2. That in reply to contents of para No.2 of the application, it is submitted here that

the unit /factory M/s Pavit Industries was close down according to the provision of

Industrial Dispute Act. The whole position has been made clear in para No.1 to 4 of the

preliminary objections and the same is reiterated here. The applicant is not at all

entitled to the amount of gratuity as is being claimed. He has already been given all the

benefits including the retrenchment compensation and the balance fee etc. amounting

to Rs.43333.33/- as has been held by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak

in its award dated 31.8.2015. The claim of the applicant is even otherwise barred by

law.
3. That the contents of para No.3 of the application is wrong, hence denied. The

applicant is not at all entitled to any amount of gratuity as is being claimed. He has

already been paid the benefit for which he was entitled to. His claim has already been

rejected by all the authorities where he insisted for the payment of gratuity also. This

claim petition filed by the applicant is even otherwise time barred and has been filed just

to harass the respondent.

4. That the contents of para No.4 of the application is wrong, hence denied. Neither

the applicant has got any right to file the present application nor this Hon’ble Tribunal

has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition.

5. That the contents of para No.5 of the application are wrong, hence denied. The

decided litigation have already been detailed in foregoing paras of the present reply

and the same is reiterated here. The details given in the annexure (form-N) are quite

wrong and the applicant is not at all entitled to any amount from the answering

respondent.

In view of the above submissions, it is therefore respectfully prayed that the

present application filed by the applicant may kindly be dismissed being devoid of merits

and in the interest of justice.

At:Rohtak Respondent

Dated:24.5.2016

Pavit Madan s/o Late Sh. Ram Tirath Madan

resident of H.No.603/23, D.L.F.Colony, Rohtak
(General Power of Attorney of Mrs.Pushpa
Madan w/o late Shri Ram Tirath Madan)
Through R.K.Sapra,

Verification:
Verified that the contents of above reply of mine are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and nothing has been concealed therein.

Respondent