MANAGEMENT OF CMC HOSPITAL VELLORE Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR APPELLATE UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY AND CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions arise out of the order of the first respondent, dated January 2, 2001, in P.G. Appeals Nos. 27 of 1998 to 43 of 1998. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petitions can be traced as under.

(2.) There was a dispute as regards the non-employment of the third respondent in each of the writ petitions which came to be adjudicated by Justice Sri Natarajan, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court as a sole arbitrator. It is common ground that the non-employment arose some time in the year 1975. The learned arbitrator gave his award on March 23, 1994. In the said arbitration award, the learned arbitrator reached a conclusion that the non-employment of the 17 workmen was not justified. Thereafter, he granted the relief of compensation both towards back-wages, as well as, in lieu of reinstatement. Subsequently, based on the said arbitration award, the concerned 17 workmen were stated to have preferred their respective applications before the second respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act in P.G. Case Nos.96 to 111 of 1996 and 208 of 1996 on the footing that they should be deemed to have been "in service till the date of arbitration award, viz., March 23, 1994." By a common order, dated July 30, 1997, all the abovesaid P.G. Applications were ordered computing the gratuity payable to the 17 workmen based on the respective last drawn wages. While the concerned 17 workmen preferred Appeals in P.G.A.Nos. 27 to 43 of 1998 before the first respondent, challenging that part of the order of the second respondent in holding that the gratuity would be calculated based on the last drawn wages, the petitioner came forward with W.P. Nos. 19504 to 19520 of 1997 before this Court, contending that the concerned Presiding Officer who signed the order, dated July 30, 1997, herself lacked jurisdiction as on the date of the order, viz., July 30, 1997, as she ceased to be the controlling authority on that date.

(3.) Be that as it may, it is stated that the petitioner also filed regular appeals under the Payment of Gratuity Act as against the order, dated July 30, 1997, without depositing the gratuity amount computed by the second respondent. Since the appeals were not numbered on the ground of non deposit of the gratuity amount as ordered by the second respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2824 of 1998 before this Court challenging the correctness of the stand of the second respondent in not numbering the appeals without making the deposit.