M/S P.D. Bidi Company v. Appellate Authority Un. Pay Ofgr.Andors.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (L) No. 4897 of 2011 M/s. P.D.Bidi Company, through power of attorney holder of partners, Prem Kumar Yadav, S/o Maikulal Yadav, aged about 62 years, R/o Bastar Road, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and In-Charge Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2.

Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3.

Smt. Asmat Bai W/o Kaliram, R/o village Achota, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate.

For Respondents :

None.

Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21/01/2016 1.

Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2.

Asmat Bai-Respondent No. 3 filed an application for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called 'the Act') before the Controlling Authority. The Petitioner did not appear despite valid service of notice leading to an ex-parte order dated 20.2.2004 for payment of Rs. 20,960/- within 30 days. An application was preferred against the ex-parte order which was rejected on 18.1.2005 holding that no valid ground had been furnished for not appearing despite valid service of notice. Against the same, the Petitioner preferred an application before the Appellate Authority which dismissed the appeal on the ground that the statutory pre-deposit in accordance with Rule 7(4) of the Act for

preferring an appeal had not been made. The appeal therefore was not maintainable.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner during hearing of the appeal had offered to make the necessary deposit. 4.

What may or may not have transpired before the Appellate Authority cannot be urged before this Court when there is no such recital contained in the order sheet. If the Petitioner was of the opinion that his argument had not been correctly recorded, the proper remedy was to move before the Appellate Authority immediately.

5.

On merits, the Petitioner has not furnished any valid ground for not appearing despite valid service of notice. The opportunity to assail the ex-parte order was also wasted away by not complying with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit. The Court finds no reason to interfere.

6.

The writ application is dismissed.

Sd/- (Navin Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit