SPECIAL OFFICER MADURANTHAKAM COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINALLY, the writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent dated 28. 10. 2005 made in I. A. No. 8 of 2005, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to hear the appeal on merits. Thereafter, the prayer was amended by an order dated 27. 7. 2006 made in WPMP. NO. 16825 of 2006 to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Controlling Authority dated 26. 11. 2004 made in P. G. No. 111 of 2004 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II as confirmed by the order of the first respondent dated 28. 10. 2005 made in I. A. No. 8 of 2005 and quash the same.

(2.) IT is also pertinent to note that originally, the Controlling Authority - the third respondent herein was not added and only by filing a petition in WPMP. NO. 16824 of 2006, by an order dated 27. 7. 2006, he was arrayed as a party.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit in support of the writ petition is as follows: the second respondent was employed as a permanent employee in the petitioner mill from 8. 4. 1961 and was terminated from service on 30. 3. 1998. The termination order was challenged by the second respondent before the Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I. D. No. 86 of 1999 and by an order dated 11. 6. 2003, the order of dismissal was quashed in terms of the award. The petitioner was reinstated as per the order of the Second Additional Labour Court. However, with regard to gratuity, the petitioner disputed the entitlement. Hence, the second respondent was constrained to move the Controlling Authority - the third respondent herein in P. G. No. 111 of 2004. The third respondent, by an order dated 26. 11. 2004, granted the relief in favour of the second respondent. As against the order of the third respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent along with an application to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal. The first respondent, after taking note of the materials made available before him, came to the conclusion that the delay has not been properly explained and as per the statute, the Appellate Authority is not having any power to condone the delay of more than 120 days in filing an appeal. That order is put in issue in this writ petition.