DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) With the consent of the counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

(3.) This writ petition challenges the order dated 5th April, 2002 passed by the Controlling Authority as well the order in appeal dated 14th June, 2002 by which the appeal of the petitioner was not admitted on failure to comply with the provisions of Section 7(7) of the Payment of the Gratuity Act requiring deposit of the impugned amount. The petitioner sought to challenge the original order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act which directed payment of Rs.3,50,000/- as gratuity to the respondent before the appellate authority. One of the issues i.e. issue No. 2 was to the effect that the claim raised by the respondent is belated and should be dismissed on this ground. This issue has been deliberated upon by the Controlling Authority which has recorded a finding that it was by virtue of correspondence sent by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner company, which has assured payment and that the claim was not settled and good reasons were given in the impugned order for condoning the delay. The Tribunal has relied upon the correspondence dated 1st December, 1998, 21-12-1998, 12-01-1999, 15-01-1999, 08-02-1999, 24-02-1999, 01-03-1999, 11-03-1999, 07-04-1999, 26-04-1999, 23-05-1999, 14-01-2000 (marked as Exhibit A-3, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-24, A-25, A-29 and A-3). These letters have been found to contain the respondent No. 4's request for release of gratuity and petitioner's request to him for bearing with the delay in such release. These documents were not challenged by the petitioner before before the Controlling Authority. Thus the Controlling Authority has rightly condoned the delay. Since correspondence was from the company itself, the ground for condoning the delay was correct and accordingly there is no merit in this plea.