Costs for delayed gratuity payment were unwarranted absent deliberate disobedience.

The first respondent, an employee of Arulmigu Ramanathaswami Temple, obtained an order from the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, in P.G. No. 114 of 2019 directing payment of gratuity at the rate of 10%.

She petitioned for implementation of that order.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directed payment of gratuity, and imposed costs of ₹5,000 on the Temple’s Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer.

The Temple appealed only against the costs, stating that financial constraints had delayed payment; during the appeal, it paid the gratuity with statutory interest.

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the appellant was liable to pay the ₹5,000 costs imposed by the Single Judge.

The Court recognised that gratuity is a statutory benefit payable to an eligible employee and that an employer must ensure its timely payment.

In considering costs, the Court assessed whether the delay reflected deliberate or wilful disobedience, taking account of the stated financial constraints and subsequent payment of the full gratuity with statutory interest.

The Court accepted that the employee was entitled to gratuity and noted that the amount, including statutory interest, had been paid during the appeal.

Although timely payment was required, the materials did not establish that the appellant had deliberately withheld the gratuity or intentionally disregarded the competent authority’s order; the delay was attributed to the Temple’s financial constraints.

In those circumstances, the Court held that imposing ₹5,000 in costs on the appellant was unwarranted.

The Court set aside the ₹5,000 costs imposed on the appellant, while confirming the direction to pay gratuity in accordance with the competent Gratuity Authority’s order, which had already been complied with.

The other directions of the Single Judge remained undisturbed, and there was no order as to costs in the appeal.