The Commissioner v. The Joint Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and W.M.P. Nos.1, 2, 3, & 4 of 2014 The Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation Salem ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act) Coimbatore- 18

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour/Controlling Authority , (Under Payment of Gratuity Act), Salem - 7.

3. C.Pappa

4. M. Varadhan

5. Pappa 6.Palani 7.S.Marakkal

8. C.Varuthi

9. Ponnuchamy

10. Raman

11. Palaniyammal

12. Ramayiee

13. Muthusamy 14.N.Lakshmi Page No.1 of 10

15.Varadhan 16.K.Palani

17. M.Pappa 18.V.Palaniyammal 19.K.Mari 20.Govindan 21.Paramari 22.Lakshmi 23.Kuppayee 24.Mathamma 25.Govindan 26.Vellaiyan 27.Duraisamy 28.Raman 29.Kanniyammal 30.Palaniyammal 31.Chinna Angayee 32.Lakshmi 33.Paapaa 34.Mariyayee 35.C.Chinnaperumayie

36. S.Panjali 37.Ramayee 38.Chinnaramayee 39.Kanthayee 40.Kaliyammal 41.R.Pappa 42.Kondan 43.Ayithal 44.A.Chinnathayee 45.Veerammal 46.Kuppayee 47.Sankaran 48.Ramayee 49.Veerammal 50.Mariyayee 51.Muniyammal 52.Kandan 53.Naachi Page No.2 of 10

54.Maryappan 55.Veerammal 56.Maathaiyan 57.Lakshmi.A 58.Palaniyammal.A 59.M.Sithayee 60.Ramasamy 61.Kandaswamy 62.Narayanan 63.Karuppan 64.Maruthaiyapillai 65.K.Mariyayee 66.Naachayee 67.K.Ramayee 68.Palani 69.P.Kanthayee 70.P.Chinnammal 71.Aasirvatham 72.A. Ramayee 73.Rengan.K 74.Kangatharan 75.Muniyan 76.Lakshmanan 77.P.Chinnuswamy 78.P.Peryathayee 79.P.Elumalai 80.Kuppan 81.Antonusamy.M 82.K.Palani 83.A.Mohan 84.Lakshmi 85.Perumal 86.K.Sadayan 87.Ramasamy 88.Ramayee 3 to 88 Respondents are C/o G.Krishnan General Secretary Page No.3 of 10

Coimbatore District Jeeva Municipal Labour Association 259, 7th Street, Extension, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore- 641 012.

89. The Tahsildar Salem Taluk, Salem.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.E.9528/2003 dated 10.11.2003 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to pass orders on the appeal made by the petitioner under section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act on merits and pass orders. For Petitioner : Ms.N.Devi For Respondents : Mr.K.Surendran , AGP For R1, R2 & R89 R3 to R88- Not Ready Notice *****

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.E/9528/2003 dated 10.11.2003 and to consequently, direct the 1st respondent to pass orders on the appeal made by the petitioner under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Page No.4 of 10

2. Mr.K.Surendran, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 89.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, the respondents 3 to 88 are employed as Sanitary workers in the erstwhile Salem Municipality and they have retired from service. All of them have retired before 1982. They have been employed on daily wages and they have been provincialised as per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2469 Public Health & Family Welfare Department, dated 01.10.1973. On the date of retirement the respondents 3 to 88 have been granted with all terminal benefits and other benefits. However, after a lapse of several years in the year 1998, the respondents 3 to 88 have filed an application before the 2nd respondent for payment of gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The second respondent vide order dated 23.11.

2000 allowed the said application in favour of the private respondents directing the petitioner Corporation to make payment of gratuity to the claimants for the entire service rendered by them. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent u/s.7 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. However, the first respondent instead of considering the appeal on merits, passed an the impugned order dated 10.11.2003 on the ground that the appeals were not Page No.

filed within the prescribed time limit as mandated u/s 7(7) of the Act. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Though very many grounds have been raised in the above writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to unforeseen situation, the petitioner was not able to file the Appeals within the prescribed limitation period i.e., 120 days. Hence, the impugned order passed by the first respondent rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner management is per se unsustainable. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the above writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 89 and perused the materials available on record.

6. Admittedly, the controlling authority / second respondent passed the order dated 23.11.2000 directing the petitioner to pay gratuity to the respondents 3 to 88 within 30 days, against which, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority / first respondent, who in turn rejected the same vide order dated 10.11.2003 on the ground that the petitioner management has filed the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit of 120 days Page No.6 of 10

as per Section 7(7) of the Act. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions u/s.7(7) of the Act is extracted hereunder:

7(7) - Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section

(4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf:

Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days.

7. A perusal of Section 7(7) of the Act reveals that any appeal aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) of the Act has to be filed within the period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the said order, in case if any sufficient cause is shown to the appellate authority, the Government has power under the proviso to Section 7 of the Act to extend the period of limitation further for a period of 60 days.

8. Though the facts stands as such, however, in the present case on hand, the controlling authority has passed the order on 23.11.2000, however, Page No.7 of 10

the petitioner has not chosen to file appeal before the appellate authority within the prescribed limitation period of 120 days as per Section 7(7) of the Act. Therefore, the delay caused by the petitioner cannot said to be a sufficient ground for consideration. Hence, the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 10.11.2003 cannot be interfered with, since he has no power to extend the prescribed time frame as per the statutes.

9. With the above observations and reasons, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

05.03.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order NCC:Yes/No rap Page No.8 of 10

To

1. The Joint Commissioner of Labour, (Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act), Coimbatore-18.

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour/Controlling Authority, (Under Payment of GratuityAct), Salem-7.

3.The Tahsildar Salem Taluk, Salem.

Page No.9 of 10

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

rap and W.M.P. Nos.1, 2, 3, & 4 of 2014 05.03.2025 Page No.10 of 10