(1.) An Order of the original authority / 1st respondent dated 30.08.2017 passed in PG.No.25 of 2017 is under challenge in this writ petition.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Packer, Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores in Vellore District, on 04.06.1978. In 1997 the Vellore District was bifurcated and Tiruvannamalai District was constituted. The second respondent was transferred pursuant to the bifurcation. The 2nd respondent filed a petition before the 1st respondent under Section 7 of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming gratuity amount of Rs. 2,66,187/-. Along with the main petition, the 2nd respondent filed a petition for condoning the delay of 97 days in P.G.I.A.No.255 of 2015. The 1st respondent issued a summon dated 06.03.2017 directing the petitioner Cooperative store to appear before him on 14.03.2017 at 11.30 am to submit his objections. Therefore, the summons received by the writ petitioner / Store on 10.03.2017 was not for the P.G. Petition but for the condone delay petition in PG.I.A.No.255 of 2015. The appeal is yet to be numbered. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that no notice was issued to the writ petitioner at the time of hearing of the petition by the 1st respondent. In view of the fact no notice was issued to the writ petitioner, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel would state that the principles of natural justice has been violated and therefore the order passed by the original authority is liable to be scrapped.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent - workmen opposed the contention by stating that there is an appeal remedy under the Statute. Section 7(7) of the payment of gratuity act provides remedy for filing of an appeal and the same read as under: