NATARAJA PILLAI Vs. REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the employer of the third respondent. According to the third respondent, he was under the service of the petitioner for the period from February 1, 1984, to December 30, 1989. According to the petitioner, the third respondent was in his service only for the period from May 27, 1986, to December 8, 1989. It is also the case of the petitioner that without informing him, the third respondent absented from duly with effect from December 8, 1989, and, thereafter, nothing was heard about him and on enquiry, it was found that he is engaged as a Foreman in the Thankam Match Industries. The petitioner was served with a copy of application submitted by the third respondent before the second respondent claiming gratuity to the tune of Rs. 7,200. Exhibit P-1 is the formal application. The petitioner submitted an objection, Exhibit P-2. Thereafter, the third respondent filed a replication. The third respondent was examined on August 8, 1992, He also filed the copy of application filed earlier to the controlling authority, which was not in the prescribed form. Exhibit R-3 (a) is the said application. The case was posted to January 4, 1991, for examination of the petitioner who was the opposite party. At the request of counsel for the petitioner (opposite party), the case was again adjourned to October 10, 1991, then to October 30, 1991, and finally to November 20, 1991. On November 20, 1991, also, the petitioner and his counsel were absent. Accordingly, the case was taken for orders and ultimately Exhibit P-3 order was passed on December 11, 1991. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, but it was dismissed by proceedings, Exhibit P-8 dated June 30, 1992.

(2.) IN this original petition, the petitioner challenges Exhibits P-3 and P8. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following points; (1) The application was barred by operation of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), which prescribes a period of 90 days of the occurrence of the cause of action for submitting the application; (2) There is no dispute to prefer an application and as such the application is not maintainable; (3) There is no demand as provided in Section 7 of the Act and for this reason also the application is not maintainable; and (4) The petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to contest the matter.

(3.) IT is true that Rule 10 lays down that an application to the controlling authority should be presented within a period of 90 days of the occurrence of cause of action and proviso to the said rules states that any application under this sub-rule, on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant, the authority may accept the application after the expiry of the said period. In the instant case, a formal application was filed only on February 21, 1991, beyond the period of 90 days prescribed by the rule.