M DEVARAJULU Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions, about 35 in number, have been filed by the petitioner, who is said to be a handling Contractor, challenging the common order dated November 26, 1991 in I. A. Nos. 1/91 etc. in P. G. Case Nos. 173/91, etc. passed by the 1st respondent, condoning the delay in filing the applications under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also in allowing the claim of the workers for the payment of gratuity, simultaneously, with a further direction that the amounts specified in the annexure to the said order be paid within 30 days from the date of order.

(2.) THE workers, who are arrayed as the 2nd respondent in these writ petitions, respectively, claimed before the 1 st respondent that they were employed under the petitioner/management, as steel handling labourers with effect from Setember 1, 1976 and that their services were terminated for reasons not disclosed to them, on October 31, 1989 and consequently, they were obliged to submit applications under Rule 7 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972, Since the writ petitioner failed to pay them the gratuity, they had to approach the 1st respondent and in doing so, there was a delay and within the frame work of the rules governing the matter, they filed applications for condonation of the delay in the filing of their claim petitions before the 1st respondent under Rule 10 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules 1972. In support of those claim petitions, the workers contended that they had earlier applied for the payment of gratuity to the writ petitioner/employer in Form No. 1 and since there was no positive response, they approached the 1st respondent in Form No. N and that the delay was on account of the negotiations that were going on between the workers and the employer for settlement and on its failure, they approached the 1st respondent. The writ petitioner/employer objected to the condonation of the delay.

(3.) THE 1st respondent has conducted an enquiry and after hearing both sides, had passed the impugned order. Thereupon, the petitioner/management has filed these writ petitions. The main and only ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner at the threshold before us is that the 1 st respondent had committed an error in passing the impugned order on the question of condonation of delay in filing the claim petitions as also the merit of the claims so made and the issue relating to the jurisdiction. It is contended that the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent resulted in the denial of an opportunity to the petitioner/management to file its counter affidavit in the main application regarding the claim and that therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In substance, the complaint is about the proce- i dural infirmity alleged in the manner of disposal of the claim petitions filed before the 1st respondent.