P RAMA RAO Vs. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A batch of writ petitions questioning the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Centra!) under which order he has rejected the objection of the writ petitioner - respondent (the employer) as to the delay in filing the claim application for gratuity, has been allowed by the learned single judge. Employees have preferred the instant appeals.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the appellant - employees served for the full term of employment and retired and on their retirement, became entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder. Their demands, however, for non-payment of certain part of gratuity were inordinately delayed as their services were terminated ranging from 1973 to 1993. The management responded to their demands in the proceeding by stating that they had already been paid gratuity as per their entitlements under the Act and after such inordinate delay, it was not desirable to entertain their claims. Appellants, however, maintained that they were not aware of the beneficial provisions of the Act, when their services were terminated. As soon as they came to know through their co-workers they submitted their claim applications before the proper authority for their due gratuity. On the question, however, of condonation of delay, we shall refer to the relevant provisions later in our judgment. The Controlling Authority under the Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) has stated as follows:

(3.) WritPetitioner-respondent{employer)has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the Controlling Authority on principle, inter alia,