COMMISSIONER Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions as the relief sought for is identical and the petitioner Municipal Corporation has challenged the order passed by the first respondent dated 26.09.2006, which is a common order in all these cases, the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The third respondent in all these writ petitions filed applications before the second respondent under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), claiming gratuity on the ground that they have all worked as Sanitary Workers for a total period of 40 years. The petitioner Municipal Corporation resisted the claim by filing a counter affidavit disputing the period of service as well as the last drawn wages claimed to have been drawn by them. Further, it was submitted that each of them were paid Rs.8174/- as DCRG and therefore, the claim made by them is not tenable. It was further stated in the counter statement that the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be applied as the third respondent would not come under the definition of 'employee'. The second respondent by common order dated 31.10.2001, allowed the claim petitions and computed the gratuity payable to each of the third respondents. The petitioner Municipal Corporation preferred appeal before the first respondent under Section 7(7) of the Act. The appeal was presented during April 2002 and it is an admitted case that the appeal was presented within the period of 60 days as the petitioner Municipal Corporation is stated to have received the order of the second respondent dated 31.10.2001, on 13.03.2002. Therefore, the petitioner corporation could have presented the appeal before 12.04.2002. Though the appeal was presented before the first respondent, the petitioner Municipal Corporation failed to deposit the amount as required under the Act for the purpose of entertaining the appeal. It is stated by the petitioner Corporation that due to financial constraints, they were not able to comply with the condition and deposit a total sum of Rs.4,54,139/-, and consequently, the appeal was returned on 15.04.2002, for not depositing the amount. Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner Corporation filed W.P.Nos.32236 to 32237 of 2002, before this Court. The writ petitions were dismissed by this Court, by order dated 07.08.2002. Therefore, the petitioner Corporation ought to have represented the appeal immediately complied with the condition namely the pre-deposit required to be done under the Act and then contest the matter on merits. However, they did not re-present the same for nearly four years and represented the papers only on 22.12.2005 along with applications to condone the delay in I.A.Nos.1 to 12 of 2006. The only reason assigned in the affidavit is that as on the date of the representation, gratuity amount as ordered by the second respondent has been deposited and the appeal was initially presented in time and therefore, the delay in representation has to be condoned. The first respondent by order dated 26.09.2006, dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully considered the submissions made on either side.