ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER T M S S MLIBRARY AND RESEARCH CENTRE Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in these two writ petitions is the very same officer of the Thanjavur Maharaja Sarfoji Sarasvati Mahal Library, Thanjavur. Aggrieved by the common order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in two gratuity appeals, dated 12.03.2010, the present writ petitions have been filed.

(2.) The Petitioner challenging the order passed by the controlling authority, dated 25.05.2006 granting gratuity for the contesting Respondents for the service rendered by them in the Petitioner library. The arguments of the Petitioner before the controlling authority was that the employees engaged by the library are covered by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and therefore, they are not eligible to get gratuity and hence the applications filed by the contesting Respondents were not valid. However, the controlling authority found against the Petitioner by order, dated 25.05.2006 under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and appeals will have to be filed before the appellate authority within 60 days and the said appellate authority has also got power to condone further period of 60 days and altogether the appeals will have to be filed within 120 days.

(3.) Further, the condition precedent for filing the appeals, the Appellant will have to deposit the entire gratuity amount before the controlling authority. As required under second proviso to Section 7(7) of the Act, the Petitioner did not deposit the entire deposit amount and rest contended by depositing only 50%, the appellate authority rejected the appeals on two grounds namely, i)the second proviso to Section 7(7) was not fulfilled inasmuch as the entire amount of gratuity was not deposited though the Petitioner claimed that due to paucity of funds, the act provides for exemption from such deposit, therefore, on that ground, the appeals filed by the Petitioner was non suited. The second ground urged by the Petitioner was that the delay in filing the appeals must be condoned. The authority found that in terms of Section 7(7), the first proviso to Section 7(7), he has power to only condone the delay of further 60 days whereas in the present case, as against the said order dated 25.05.2006 which was allegedly received by them on 06.07.2006.