The Management Of v. The Appellate Authority
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:27.02.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)Nos.8005 to 8008 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6185 to 6189 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.8005 of 2017 3.Sri.S.K.Ganesan proceedings in Athimu/E/656/17, dated 13.03.2017 and the No.78/2014, dated 25.04.2016 and quash the same and consequently
No Appearance for R1 and R2 W.P(MD)No.8006 of 2017 3.Sri.P.Thangam proceedings in Athimu/E/657/17, dated 13.03.2017 and the No.76/2014, dated 25.04.2016 and quash the same and consequently No Appearance for R1 and R2 W.P(MD)No.8007 of 2017
3.Sri.K.Poochan proceedings in Athimu/E/658/17, dated 13.03.2017 and the No.79/2014, dated 25.04.2016 and quash the same and consequently No Appeaance for R1 and R2 W.P(MD)No.8008 of 2017
3.Sri.M.Gurusamy proceedings in Athimu/E/659/17, dated 13.03.2017 and the No.80/2014, dated 25.04.2016 and quash the same and consequently No Appearance for R1 and R2 *** COMMON ORDER The Management has questioned the impugned order passed by the controlling authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 2.The private respondents herein were employed with the petitioner Management. On their retirement, their gratuity claims were not settled.
Therefore, they moved the controlling authority. There was delay in lodging the claim. Therefore, the petitions were filed together with an application for condonation of delay. The Management filed counter opposing the condonation of delay. The matter was taken up on a few occasions and thereafter, the Management was set ex-parte. While allowing the application for condonation of delay, the controlling authority
chose to pass order in the main petition itself. Such a procedure is clearly bad in law. If there was a delay in lodging the claim petition, the delay must be condoned and thereafter there must be enquiry in the main petition. In this case, even at the stage of condonation of delay, the main petition itself has been allowed. This kind of approach is not contemplated under the statute. Therefore, on this sole ground, the impugned order is set aside in part. In other words, the order condoning the delay is confirmed. The controlling authority is directed to number the main petition, hold an enquiry and thereafter, pass fresh orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that the Management will file its counter and also get along with the main matter without dragging on the proceedings.
In any event, the controlling authority will pass orders in the main petition within two months. In the interest of justice, considering the undisputed facts involved, the Management is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to all the private respondents herein. If such payment is not made, the controlling authority will be entitled to strike off the defence of the Management.
3.With these directions, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar() /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To + 1 CC TO MR.S.Mandhiralingeswaran , ADVOCATE IN SR No. 52159 + 1 CC TO MR.K.Hemakarthikeyan , ADVOCATE IN SR No. 51881 skn KK/KKR/SAR 1/17/05/2018/5P/5C
W.P.(MD)Nos.8005 to 8008 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6185 to 6188 of 2017 27.02.2018