L RAMULU Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interpretation of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity Rules framed under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter called the Act) falls for determination in this writ petition. The petitioner herein who was an employee of the 3rd respondent Company, after retirement, sought the payment of gratuity from the Company. On refusal of the same, he filed an application before the Authority under the Act, which was, however, rejected as time barred. On the appeal also the order of the primary authority was confirmed. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) The refusal of the application as per the impugned order is that it is a delayed application as under Rule 10 of the Rules, it is obligatory on the part of the employee to file the application within three months and in as much as there is a delay of three months and since it is not condonable, the relief sought for cannot be accorded.

(3.) The contention of Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, the learned counsel for he petitioner, is that when the petitioners services were terminated on 2 8/01/1981 he was under the impression that the gratuity was deposited and therefore he would draw the same, but when it was learnt on 8/04/1981 that gratuity has not been deposited, he sent an application on the same day which was received by the 3rd respondent on the following day i.e. 9/04/1981. Since on reply was received, the petitioner filed an application before the authority under the Act on 19/06/1981 and therefore the application was within the meaning of Rule 10, as the petitioner applied within three months from the date of deeming rejection by the authority concerned.