High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/689/2025dismissed

Sh S K Jain Chairman Of Ditm Ganaur And Another v. The Ld District Judge Sonipat Cum Educational Tribunal Sonipat And Others

2025-01-14Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya4 pages

!"#"$% &'

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

! "# #$%&'

(& #)

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

# )

# * (+$ , " - &( ./ # #0/$"1

$ $23452526

7/6) $ *! # $/'

+ + -#*! # )) + (+$ *! # '& )&

# * ) +! ++&-$*!$'

") !1

&( &( + !

1&/

"₹463555- -&1&

# # +&* &$$ #

+$ !*! , "#1&

#+! + ! ₹35555

$&(₹23555 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable on two counts. Firstly, the second respondent was appointed with the petitioner-Management on a monthly salary of ₹25,000, which was wrongly taken to be ₹30,000. The letter of

appointment, Annexure P-5, issued to him mentioning the pay as ₹30,000 per month cannot be considered valid as it is undated. Secondly, it has wrongly been directed that the second respondent would be entitled to calculation of gratuity by taking his salary as ₹30,000 per month. The direction is without jurisdiction since as per law laid down by the Division Bench in CR-4315-2012 titled Management of S.D. Model Senior Secondary School and another v. District Judge-cum-Service Tribunal and another, the Tribunal is not competent to adjudicate the disputes relating to gratuity arising under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act, 1972). 3.

The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered.

It remains undisputed that the second respondent was appointed by the petitioner-Management on 02.08.2010. The amount of monthly salary payable to him as per the terms of appointment was disputed by the Management before the Tribunal as well, but it failed to produce any evidence on record establishing that he was actually drawing any lesser amount as monthly salary. The Management being the employer was privy to the record, if any, and was bound to produce the same as well. On its failure to do so, the salary mentioned in the letter of appointment was accepted as correct, which is unexceptionable. The Tribunal's findings to that effect recorded in para 9 and 10 of the impugned Judgment are as under: 8 #( '

/1&( ))&

&( ))++

& 52592545

* "$ $$'

+!*!)&

&4:6 #&/"# #!

# $ )+ $$ ) #1 # 1&

#+! + ! - 23555;)1&

#-# #! &&,&% "1

<*/ !2525 #)%&/# 1 &( # "1

;

( )&

&4)&

&2#&-%# $1

))++

- ))&

$& 52592545 $ 2549$/ (

' + '/ '# # + ! - $/'$ & 25555; ;

23555; # # )'

-#'# $ &* $

)

' *& #)&

&4:6& & # $ )&

&2& ## $ '+ 1 #'&$ )

& ))&

) !1

&( + !&( ))++

* , ''&/

'- #& #$ #' &( )&

&2 -# #+( # "1

++ # '&$-# $$&% &)&

&4:6-# )&

&4:6'+ 1$ )&

&2 % $$&% !'&$)

&'&++" $ &&, - ! ++

#'&$ +& * "'+ 1$ ( , "&%&( "1

'&++"# $/$$ +$ $% 1

-) )'+ 1 ) #1/'#) !1

$/ ( !*&$!# &*0'

1 ,#./ #&-% ./ - 1 $ *! ))++

'+ 1 " ) !1

&( + + ! 45 &-% )

' & ' ))++

# /''$$

)&% #( '

#- ))&

$& 52592545 $ # ( '

# * $)/ $*! #)&

# - # $/ ! &( # )&

;

& )+ ' & '&$ ))&

%$-#'# ))++

- ))&

$ $ +&

&$'+& #7 '

1&/

&( + ! "$ &*) $ $- '

/ ++! ) $ ++ /+! 2549 )&

& 2 # $/+!

$ + !&( ))++

- $/'$ 2549 #*

%$ ' % + *+- #'&++" $ # "1

-#'# '&++" $ # "1

# %( +$ &)&$/'& '&$

#(& 72# &* '') $*! #'&/ '&'

))&

#'&

" $ "+ ',&(0/$'

# + #&+$ #'& $)&

+$ !*! , "

& ₹ + ! =5555 +& /

*+ ' # + #

$0/$'

$ !$)/ +

&) !1

!/ $ #'

48>2

#$'

#" !& #* &( + ! '

/ ++!$ -

*! #'& $)&

* $/)& #( "'&$$ #0/$"1

" $ " '

/ + + !) $ &#1 # "++" +&"/+ *&/ 6.

The Tribunal's judgment has been rendered after proper appreciation of facts and the evidence on record, it does not suffer from any error of law. The petition accordingly stands dismissed. )TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA* 46542523