MADURA COATS LTD Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions the common order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act is being challenged. The facts are similar in both the cases. The third respondent in each of the petitions resigned from service and applied for gratuity. The amounts claimed by them were paid in full by the writ petitioner. After some time, they filed applications before the second respondent claiming that they would be entitled to some more amounts by way of gratuity and there was some error in the calculations when they claimed gratuity from the writ petitioner. The applications were opposed by the writ petitioner on the following three grounds: (i) The applications were barred by limitation, (ii) The applicants were estopped from making any claim for further amounts of gratuity, they having received the amounts already claimed by them from the employer; and (iii) The applicants were not entitled to any extra amount by way of gratuity as claimed by them. All the three contentions were found against the writ petitioner by the second respondent in his order dt. 30-4-1981. On appeal by the writ petitioner, third respondent confirmed the order of the second respondent, by order dated 12-3-1982. it is the order of the third respondent which is called in question in these writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the writ petitioner confined his submissions to the question of limitation. He invited our attention to the relevant rules providing for periods of limitation. Rule 7 of the Payment of gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, provides that an employees who is eligible for payment of gratuity shall apply ordinarily within thirty days from the date gratuity became payable in Form (I) to the employer. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 7 is to the effect that the periods of limitation specified in sub-rule (l), (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be operative from the date of commencement of the Rules, where gratuity became payable before such commencement. Sub-Rule (5) reads that an application filed after the expiry of the periods specified in the Rule shall also be maintained by the employer, if the applicant adduces sufficient cause for the delay in preferring his claim and no claim for gratuity under the Act shall be invalid merely because the claimant failed to make his application within the specified period. The said sub-rule also provides that any dispute in that regard shall be referred to the controlling Authority for his decision. Rule 8 provides for notice for payment of gratuity and prescribes the time limits there for Rule 9 deals with the mode of payment of gratuity; and Rule 10 deals with application to the Controlling authority for direction. Under Rule 10, if an employer refuses to accept a nomination or to entertain an application filed under Rule 7 or issues a notice under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 8, either specifying an amount of gratuity less than that payable to the applicant or rejecting the eligibility of the applicant to gratuity or fails to issue any notice as required under Rule 8 within the time specified therein, the employee may within ninety days of the occurrence of the cause for the application, apply in Form to the Controlling Authority of section 7. Section 7 (4) of the Act enables the Controlling Authority to decide any dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee or the admissibility of any claim of an employee to any gratuity and other disputes between the employer and the employee.

(3.) IN the result, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Advocate fee Rs. 500 one set.