State Of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Champ Bai Yadav

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 122 OF 2016 1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2.

Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

Smt. Champa Bai Yadav, W/o Shri Nanki Ram Yadav, R/o Ward No. 14, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2.

The Appellate Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Deputy Labour Commissioner, office of the Commissioner, Labour, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3.

The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Labour Officer, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 :

Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 30/11/2016 1.

By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the State intends to challenge the order dated 22.7.2014 passed by Respondent No.3, the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The State also intends to challenge the order dated 30.7.2015 passed by Respondent No.2, the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the appeal of the State Government preferred against the order of Respondent No.3, dated 22.7.2014, was dismissed on the question of it being barred by limitation.

2.

Though the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation on 30.7.2015, the present petition has been filed by the State on 22.4.2016, that is, after almost about 9 months from the impugned order being passed.

-23.

This Court does not intend to go into the merits of the case as to whether the Respondent No.1 was entitled to payment of gratuity or not, for the simple reason that the Appellate Authority has not dealt with that issue. The question would be, whether the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 7 of the Act?

4.

It is trite at this juncture to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ appeals (Writ Appeal No.349 of 2016 - Kirtan Ram Thakur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, being the leading case), decided 22.8.2016, whereby the Division Bench under similar circumstances has held that once when the appeal of the appellant has been rejected by the Appellate Authority holding it to be barred by limitation, the same cannot be revived. The Division Bench thus finally allowed the writ appeals setting aside the order passed by the Writ Court.

5.

Applying the same analogy and principle as has been laid down by the Division Bench in the said writ appeals, as the present writ petition also has been filed against an order of the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality on the order passed. The present writ petition accordingly is dismissed being devoid of merits.

6.

Consequently, the interim order passed by this Court on 14.6.2016 also stands vacated.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ Judge