GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PATAN NAGARPALIKA PATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the above Special Civil Applications want to quash and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner Gujarat State Ahmedabad dated 21-6-1983 and to direct the Appellate Authority appointed under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act who is the Respondent No. 4 in these petitions to entertain the appeals filed by the petitioners after condoning the delay in filing the said appeal.

(2.) The Gujarat Electricity Board on an application made by the Patan Nagarpalika revoked the electric licence under sec. 42 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 In terms of the said revocation order the Patan Nagarpalika at Patan handed over the distribution of the electrical undertaking to the petitioners on 30/06/1981 As per sec. 7 of the Indian Electricity Act the undertaking of the 1st Respondent vested with the Board free from any debt mortgage of similar obligation of the said licence. It is the case of the Board that consequent upon delivering the distribution of assets the Respondent No. 1 terminated the services of the employees and fresh appointments were given by the petitioner-Board thereafter to such of those employees who were willing to join the services of the Board and who were found suitable at the relevant point of time. Respondent No. 1 after terminating the services of these employees paid the amount of gratuity to those employees who were terminated by it. The employees who were terminated by the Respondent No. 1 through Patan Nagarpalika Kamdar Sangh filed 43 applications before the competent authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act for difference in the amount of gratuity payable to them and actually paid to them by respondent No. 1. The petitioners were party to the same. The petitioners in their Written Statement have inter alia contended that it took over the undertaking with a specific condition and stipulation to the effect that the taking over of the assets of the electrical undertaking of the Patan Nagarpalika was done without taking over any liability or obligation of the licensee i.e. Patan Nagarpalika including those towards the employees and as such any claim whatsoever whether of the consumers suppliers creditors or of the employees who would be discharged by the Patan Nagarpalika and all taxes debts dues or compensation to the employees for retrenchment etc. would be the liability and would be discharged by the said Patan Nagarpalika. It was further contended by the petitioners herein before the authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act that the applicants ware given employment by the Board as fresh or new employees and by issuing fresh appointment letters and that the employees having been taken up in the employment of the Board as a fresh or new employees by issuing fresh appointment letter their claim for continuity of service and or difference in gratuity amount on the basis thereof or otherwise is misconceived and legally not tenable. The petitioners have further contended that the relief claimed for continuity of service before the authority concerned cannot be legally entertained and that the claim of the employees is absolutely misconceived baseless and legally not tenable and deserves to be rejected.

(3.) The Controlling Authority before whom such applications were filed by the employees by its order dated 26-7-1982 rejected the application filed by the employees on the ground that the applications were premature. However the Controlling Authority by its said order held that the services of the employees of the respondent No. 1 who were taken up with the services of the Board after taking over had not come to an end and their services were continuous and that there was no break in their services. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners herein preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority along with applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. In the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal the petitioners herein have inter alia contended that as certain information and dates required to be collected took longer time the appeal was filed late. The Deputy Labour Commissioner who is the Appellate Authority rejected the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal even without hearing the petitioners herein observing that the appeals were not filed within 60 days as per Rule 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act that the reasons for condonation of delay are not reasonable and that as such the petitions have to be reJected. Aggrieved with this order of reacting the applications for condoning the delay even without hearing the petitioners herein the Gujarat Electricity Board and the Commercial Manager of the Gujarat Electricity Board have filed the present Special Civil Applications. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the averments made in the Special Civil Application and contended that the employees who have filed the applications before the authority constituted under the Gratuity Act cannot claim any continuity of service as per the Notification and conditions for taking over the undertaking from the Patan Nagarpalika. It was further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the employees who are agitating for gratuity are fresh entrants with the Electricity Board under new appointment orders and that there is no question of their services being continued as wrongly held by the authority constituted under the Gratuity Act. The petitioners contend that they are not at all liable to pay any gratuity amount and eventhough the authority concerned dismissed the applications the specific finding to the effect that there is continuity of service in respect of those employees who have filed the applications for getting the gratuity is an adverse order which has to be set aside.