KURUVITHADAM ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LTD. Vs. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. It is engaged in the retail business of electronic goods and bank security products and the 2nd respondent was an employee under the petitioner establishment. The 2nd respondent had moved the 1st respondent Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming gratuity. By Ext.P1, an ex parte order was passed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner had filed Ext.P2 application for setting aside the ex parte order; but, no orders have been passed in the same. In the meantime, Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued against the petitioner for recovery. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply pointing out that Ext.P2 application for setting aside the ex parte order is pending. However, now the petitioner is served with Ext.P5 stating that recovery steps were initiated as Ext.P2 application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed after 30 days from the date of receipt of Ext.P1 order and thereby, it cannot be considered. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 was filed within time. This is the grievance highlighted by the petitioner in this Writ Petition and it is with these averments, the petitioner prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari calling for the records and quash Ext.P5 and to direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 on merits.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the application to set aside the ex parte order was passed beyond the period of limitation, the 1st respondent ought to have accepted the application on the files and considered the question of limitation i.e., the delay in filing the application. But, in the instant case, the 1st respondent has not taken Ext.P2 on the files and thereby the petitioner is deprived of his right to contend that it was filed within time.