MALABAR SPINNING AND WEAVING MILL Vs. NARAYANAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question is posed for consideration in both these Original Petitions. The petitioner is the same in both the cases. It is a Government of Kerala company incorporated under the Companies Act. The first respondent, in both these O.Ps, filed an applications before the second respondent, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, for payment of balance amounts due. The petitioner management contested the claim. Amongst others, it was contended that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications in question and that no sufficient cause was shown by the first respondent to condone the delay in filing the applications. By Ext. P3, in both the cases, the second respondent Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act-found that it has got jurisdiction to hear the applications. It also held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the applications. The matter was posted for further evidence. The petitioner filed appeals before the third respondent Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act,-and assailed Ext. P3 order. The third respondent, by Ext. P5 order in both the cases, dated 25-6-1988, held that the appeal filed against the preliminary order of the Controlling Authority is not maintainable. It was further held that an appeal will lie only against the final order of the Controlling Authority and since the Controlling Authority has not passed its final order, the appeals filed before it are incompetent. The appeals were dismissed in limine. In these Original Petitions, the challenge is against Exts. P5 and P5 orders.

(2.) I beard counsel for the petitioner. The only point pressed, at the time of bearing, was that the third respondent erred in holding that the appeals filed before it are unsustainable or incompetent. It was argued that S.7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act was misunderstood in holding that the appeals are incompetent,

(3.) S.7(4) and S.7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are relevant for deciding the point in controversy. The said sections provide as follows: