JAGDISH BHUINYA Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED : G.M., BCCL, KURIDIH COLLIERY BLOCK-4, DHANBAD : PROJECT OFFICER, KURIDIH COLLIERY, BLOCK-4, DHANBAD : REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent BCCL. Challenge in this writ application is to the order dated 03.03.2005 passed in P.G. Appeal No. 75 of 2004 by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 4), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner / appellant against the order dated 6.5.2004 passed by the Assistant. Labour Commissioner, Central-cum-Controlling Authority, Dhanbad, was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner had preferred an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act against the respondent BCCL, before the Controlling Authority. It appears that though, he had filed the application, but the same was dismissed on default on 6.5.2004 by the Controlling Authority. It further appears that more than 120 days after the passing of the order by the Competent Authority, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority namely, the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, Dhanbad along with a petition for condoning the delay. By the impugned order dated 3rd March 2005, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation and there was no possibility of condoning the delay beyond the period of 120 days.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would explain, by reference to Rule 11(4) of the Payment of Gratuity (Jharkhand Rules), 2001, that as per the mandatory provisions, a copy of the finding recorded by the Controlling Authority, had to be given to each of the parties. In the present case, though the order of dismissal on default was passed by the Controlling Authority on 06.05.2004 and that too, apparently without the petitioner's knowledge but neither the copy of the order was communicated, nor served to him. It was only in the month of Dec. 2004, that the petitioner had received the copy of the order which was forwarded to him by post. Nevertheless, the petitioner having obtained the earlier information, though after lapse of more than 120 days of date of order, had filed his appeal before the Appellate Authority, stating the reason for the delay and also filing a petition for condoning the delay, if any. Learned counsel adds further that as a matter of fact, there was no delay whatsoever in filing the appeal since, the period of limitation has to be computed only from the date of service of the order and not from the date of the order which was passed without the knowledge of the petitioner.