MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated July 17, 1997 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2396 of 1994 (R), whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant against an order passed by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000.00.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the petitioner-appellant, Mineral Area Development Authority (Authority for short) challenged before the learned single Judge an order passed by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on various grounds. The respondent No. 3 Shri Shyam Sundar Sahu, was an employee of the petitioner-appellant, and he had applied under Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Bihar) Rules, 1972, for payment of gratuity and based on such an application filed by respondent No. 3 the controlling authority passed an order directing the petitioner-appellant to pay gratuity amount to the respondent No. 3. It is this order, which was challenged before the learned single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) Two points were urged by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-appellant before us, firstly that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 did not have any application to the case of the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the controlling authority having no jurisdiction in the matter, any order passed by him directing the appellant to pay gratuity to the respondent No. 3 was illegal, invalid and totally bereft of any jurisdictional power and, secondly, that the application filed by the respondent No. 3 under Rule 10 of 1972 Rules was not maintainable, even if the Act could be held to be applicable because it was filed beyond the period of limitation.