Costs for delayed gratuity payment were unwarranted absent wilful disobedience and after full payment.

Muniyammal B, a former Temple employee, obtained an order from the Deputy Commissioner of Labour directing payment of gratuity interest at 10%.

She filed a writ petition seeking implementation of that order.

The Single Judge directed payment of gratuity in accordance with the competent authority’s order and imposed costs of ₹5,000 on the Temple’s Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer.

The Temple appealed only against the costs.

During the appeal, it paid the gratuity amount with statutory interest, and attributed the delay to financial constraints.

Whether the ₹5,000 costs imposed on the appellant by the Single Judge should be set aside, given the Temple’s stated financial constraints and subsequent payment of gratuity with statutory interest.

The Court applied the principle that gratuity is a statutory benefit payable to an employee in accordance with law and that an employer must ensure its timely payment.

It also considered whether the delay amounted to deliberate or wilful disobedience when deciding whether costs were warranted.

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent.

The Court noted that the employee’s entitlement to gratuity was undisputed and that the full amount, together with statutory interest, had been paid.

Although timely payment remained the employer’s obligation, the Court found no material showing that the appellant had deliberately withheld the amount or intentionally disregarded the competent authority’s order.

In light of the Temple’s asserted financial constraints and its eventual compliance, the Court held that imposing costs personally on the appellant was unwarranted.

There was no order as to costs in the appeal.