THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP. UNION Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Gudiwada, Krishna District, condoning the delay ranging from 63 to 1095 days in preferring claim petitions for payment of differential amount of gratuity by the respective employees of the writ petitioner/employer. Hence, they are heard together and are decided by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner is the Krishna District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union, Vijayawada (henceforth referred to as the employer). There is no dispute that the respondent/employee concerned in each of these cases has rendered service to the petitioner/employer and retired from its service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/employer has settled and paid the amount of gratuity payable to them as expeditiously as possible after his retirement. However, each of these employees having thus accepted the payment of gratuity, has approached the 2nd respondent -Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (henceforth referred to as Controlling Authority), making a further claim for payment of differential amount of gratuity running to few thousand rupees more than what has been received by them, on the basis that the service rendered by each one of them prior to the regularization of their services by the employer is not taken into account and consideration for purpose of computation of gratuity. It is the claim of the respective employees that if the length of service rendered by them prior to the date of regularization of their services was taken into account and consideration, the quantum of gratuity payable would be much higher, by few thousand rupees than what has already been settled and paid by the employer. Hence, they made the claim. They also filed miscellaneous petitions in each of the claims seeking condonation of delay ranging from 63 to 1095 days as noticed supra. Though the petitioner/employer has contested the matter, the 2nd respondent -Controlling Authority by his common order dated 23.02.2015 allowed all the miscellaneous petition Nos. 1 of 2013 to 98 of 2013, condoning the delay in filing the claim petitions and accordingly ordered the claim petitions to be numbered as payment of gratuity case Nos. 1 to 98 of 2015. Challenging the correctness of the orders dated 23.02.2015, the present batch of writ petitions have been instituted by the petitioner/employer.

(3.) SRI N. Rajeswara Rao had contended that all the employees have accepted the gratuity settled and paid by the petitioner/employer without any demur or protest and having thus, accepted the payment of gratuity in full and final settlement thereof are estopped now from making any further claim. This apart, the claim of the respective employees lacks any tenability. Further, no justifiable reason or ground has been urged seeking condonation of huge amounts of delay in lodging the claim petitions and hence, no such claim/delay condonation petition ought to have entertained by the 2nd respondent -Controlling Authority. In spite of pointing out lack of tenability behind the claim as well as the petition for condonation of delay, the 2nd respondent -Controlling Authority has gone about mechanically in condoning the delay. For purpose of condoning the delay, the 2nd respondent -Controlling Authority has considered that claim for payment of gratuity is a continuous claim and hence, there is no delay in lodging a claim at all. Sri N. Rajeswara Rao would submit that this is a completely erroneous view of the matter. He would further submit that in spite of bringing to the notice of the 2nd respondent -Controlling Authority the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, the judgment of the Bombay High Court and that of the Jharkhand High Court in support of the point that the delay cannot be condoned beyond the limit prescribed under the statue in as much as the Payment of Gratuity Act is a complete code by itself and hence, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked for condoning huge delay, the delay was condoned mechanically. Sri N. Rajeswara Rao would further submit that for condonation of delay there must be justifiable reason or ground, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right nor can the delay be condoned in a routine manner.