P. Sam Koshy, J
1. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the RRC proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 against an order passed by the Controlling
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Bilaspur in case No. 36(92)/2018/RRC decided on 30/08/2018.
2. The counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that, the said order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has already
been challenged by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act under Section 7(7) and the appeal has been
filed before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) vide case No. PGA/Appeal/3/2019 and the Appellate Authority has also taken
cognizance of the said appeal and has issued notice and the next date of hearing has been given on 19/02/2019.
3. Meanwhile, the Controlling Authority has issued direction to the State authorities for initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner for
recovering the amount awarded by the Controlling Authority. Based on the said notice, the respondent No.2 has also initiated RRC proceedings
against the petitioner for the awarded amount.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that, the decision on part of the respondent No.2 is totally uncalled for, for the reason that, the matter is already is
subjudice in an appeal and the appeal is yet to be decided and the respondents therefore should not have initiated recovery proceedings. The counsel
for the petitioner further submits that, in addition, the authorities also should have considered that the entire amount has already been deposited as is
required under the Act for filing of the appeal before the Appellate Authority and for this reason also the recovery proceedings should not have been
initiated.
5. The State counsel however opposing the petition submits that, it is only an appeal that has been preferred by the petitioner and since there is no
interim order or stay granted in their favour, the respondent authorities have all the power for getting the order of the Controlling Authority executed
and thus there does not seem to be any illegality in the same.
6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, prima-facie the petition filed by the petitioner seems to be on strong
footing for the reason that, firstly, the petitioner have availed their right to appeal as provided under the statute. Secondly, as is required under the
provisions of Act, the petitioner have also deposited the entire awarded amount before the Appellate Authority. Under the said circumstances, in all
fairness, the Controlling Authority, the concerned employee i.e. the respondent No.3 as well as the Tahsildar should have waited for the outcome of
the appeal or atleast should have waited till the interim application in the appeal is decided.
7. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that, ends of justice would meet if the Writ Petition is allowed
and the respondent No.2 is directed not to proceed further with the RRC proceedings till the appeal of the petitioner which is pending consideration
before the Appellate Authority (Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C)) is finally decided.
8. The Writ Petition with the aforesaid direction stands allowed and disposed off.