MANAGEMENT B AND C MILLS LIMITED UNIT OF BINNY LTD Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR TEYNAMPET CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent passed in the appeal filed by the third respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for brevity, "the Act" ).

(2.) THE short facts leading to the passing of the impugned order by the first respondent are that the petitioner/company has suspended its operation from 13. 6. 1996. On an application filed by the third respondent for payment of gratuity in P. G. Case No. 2 of 2004, the second respondent allowed the same by order dated 15. 4. 2004. That happened to be an exparte order and on receipt of a copy of the said order, it is stated that an application was filed on 4. 10. 2004 by the petitioner/company to condone the delay and set aside the exparte order dated 15. 4. 2004. The condone delay application as well as the application to set aside the exparte order came to be allowed by the second respondent on 27. 12. 2004 on payment of cost of Rs. 300/- to the third respondent. It is stated that the petitioner has paid the said cost to the third respondent and the P. G. Case No. 2 of 2004 was restored to the file of the second respondent.

(3.) THE impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 16. 10. 2007 is challenged on various grounds, including that the third respondent, who has received the cost in the application filed by the petitioner earlier to set aside the exparte order passed by the second respondent dated 15. 4. 2004, has not challenged the said order by his conduct of receiving the cost and thereafter, the second respondent has passed the order in P. G. Case No. 2 of 2004 on merits dismissing the same on 31. 12. 2006 and in the appeal filed by the third respondent against the merit of the final order dated 31. 12. 2006 passed by the second respondent, the first respondent ought not to have reopened the original order dated 15. 4. 2004 which is no more in existence by virtue of the subsequent final order dated 31. 12. 2006 and therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent is beyond jurisdiction.