AHMEDABAD JUPITER TEXTILE MILLS Vs. MAMLATDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Saurabh mehta for Nanavati and Nanavati on behalf of the petitioner, learned AGP, Ms. Kiran pandey for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and learned advocate Mr. Chari for respondent no. 2.

(2.) IN the present petition, the petitioner has made prayer in Para. 9 (A), (B), (C) and (D) which is quoted as under :

(3.) THE Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad City has issued notice (Annexure-A) dated 29. 5. 2006 to the petitioner to pay the amount to the respondent employee as per the order passed by the Controlling authority and the appellate authority. On 2. 9. 2006, the Mamlatdar, Alien Recovery, ahmedabad sent the papers back to the deputy Labour Commissioner on the ground that post of one Recovery Officer has been sanctioned. Therefore, the recovery proceedings is to be initiated by the office of the Deputy Labour commissioner. The respondent employee addressed a letter on 29. 8. 2006 to ahmedabad City, Alien Recovery, ahmedabad stating that he has not received the amount of gratuity interest and though 8 months have passed, no steps have been taken by the respondents. It is also stated that the Ahmedabad Jupiter Textile Mills is closed. So please note that all financially and other matter decided by National textile Corporation (G) Ltd. ,1971 Ashram road, Ahmedabad-9. According to respondent employee, he is aged about 70 years old, has not received the gratuity interest and his worry is that it may be received after his death. The recovery certificate is at Annexure-B which has been issued by the controlling authority dated 14. 8. 2003 and page-19 is the order passed by controlling authority granting the amount of gratuity which comes to Rs. 1,00,000/-with simple interest of 10% w. e. f. 1. 5. 1997. Thereafter, appeal was preferred by petitioner before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has passed the order which is at page-26 and appeal is rejected considering the same is time barred and accordingly, appeal was not entertained under Section 7 (7) of Payment of Gratuity act, 1972. The appellate authority has no jurisdiction or having power to condone the delay beyond total period of 120 days. Therefore, on 29. 10. 2004, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal. At annexure-E is the decision of Division bench in LPA No. 1603 of 1999 in SCA no. 8351 of 1999 dated 30. 12. 1999 where establishment is before B1fr. Then, Section 22 is operated and permission from BIFR is necessary. Therefore, concerned party must have to approach the BIFR. Then, similar order at page-32. Then notice issued by mamlatdar, Alien Recovery, Ahmedabad city under Bombay Land Revenue code, 1879 under Section 154. Affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent employee.