ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER Vs. JOINT COMMISSION OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a Temple. The third respondent was employed in the appellant - Temple. After retiring from service, he applied for gratuity before the Controlling Authority. It was allowed. Questioning the same, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority by the appellant - Temple. The appeal was, however, not filed within the prescribed limitation period. Therefore, the Appellate Authority returned the appeal without even numbering it. The appellant - Temple filed W.P.(MD) No.20768 of 2018 before this Court for numbering the said appeal. The said writ petition is still pending as on date. In the meanwhile, the retired employee filed an application before the Controlling Authority for disbursement of the amount deposited by the appellant - Temple. The Controlling Authority issued the impugned notice dated 08.03.2019 calling upon the appellant - Temple to offer their objections. Questioning the same, the appellant - Temple filed W.P.(MD) No.8236 of 2019 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 05.04.2019. Challenging the same, the appellant - Temple has filed the present writ appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Temple reiterated the contentions set out in the memo of grounds. We are, however, not persuaded by the same. We find no valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This is for the more than one reason. First of all, the appellant - Temple is definitely liable to pay the gratuity amount. That apart, the appeal itself was not filed by the appellant - Temple within the prescribed limitation period. Therefore, no purpose will be served in entertaining this writ appeal and issuing notice to the third respondent. Hence, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.