JAGANNATHAN R Vs. DY COMMR OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the employee of the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. He filed an application under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Authority claiming arrears for difference of gratuity due to the petitioner. The said application was dismissed by the Controlling Authority viz., the 2nd respondent on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the 1st respondent under Section 7(7) of "the Act". The said appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on the ground that as against the order of the Controlling Authority on the preliminary issue, no appeal is maintainable under Section 7(7) of "the Act". The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after serving 29 years with the 3rd respondent, the petitioner resigned on May 9 1980. Due to some unavoidable circumstances, he filed an application to the Controlling Authority only during the year 1989 after a delay of 3389 days. The Controlling Authority before going to the merits of the claim considered the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay and held that the delay was not properly explained and consequently dismissed the said application for condonation of delay. The appeal preferred by the petitioner as against the said order was dismissed erroneously by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal as against the order of the Controlling Authority on preliminary issue. The learned counsel in fact submitted, as per Section 7(4) of "the Act", the Controlling Authority is empowered to hold an inquiry in regard to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under "the Act" or as to the admissibility of any claim of, or in relation to, an employee for payment of gratuity etc. The application for condonation of delay has to be considered as a dispute as to the admissibility of the claim and therefore, the order passed by the Controlling Authority shall be considered as an order under Section 7(4)(a) of "the Act". If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal under Section 7(7) of "the Act" since the said provision empowers a person aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority passed under Section 7(4) of "the Act". Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting the application on the ground that the appeal is not entertainable is liable to be set aside.

(3.) None appeared on behalf of the 3rd respondent.