The appellate authority has the power to remand the case to the original authority for fresh disposal under sub-section (8) of section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the validity of the order passed by the 1st respondent in P. G. A. case No: 1/89 (File no. 4741/89) dated: 7-10-1989. The petitioner is the employer of the 3rd respondent - employee. It appears the 3rd respondent resigned from service of the petitioner on 31-10-1987. Thereafter the 3rd respondent applied to the 2nd respondent for payment of gratuity. The 2nd respondent rejected the claim of the 3rd respondent who then carried the matter in appeal before the 1st respondent. By the impugned order dt. 7-10-89 the 1st respondent allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law, having regard to the contentions raised before him, as to how many years of service the 3rd respondent had put in the employment of the petitioner.

( 2 ) SRI P. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that section 7 (8) of the Payment of Gratuity act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) does not empower the 1st respondent to remand the matter. He should have either confirmed the order, or modified/referred it. But there is no power to remand in the appellate authority. Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, on the other hand, contends that Section 7 (8) of the Act is wide enough to vest power of remand with the appellate authority.

( 3 ) HAVING regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties the short question that arises for consideration is whether the 1st respondent has power of remand under Sub-section (8) of section 7 of the Act.

( 4 ) IT would be useful to read sub-section (8) of section 7 of the Act which is in the following terms: the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, confirm, modify or reverse the decision of the controlling Authority". From a perusal of the provision extracted above, it is clear that while disposing of the appeal the appellate authority has to give the parties to the appeal reasonable opportunity of being heard; the appellate authority has power to (a) confirm; (b) modify; or (c) reverse the decision of the controlling Authority. The present case is not a case of confirmation or modification of the order. It is a case which falls under (c) ie. , reversal of the order. Though the appellate authority - first respondent has not in so many words stated that he has reversed the order of the 2nd respondent, the very fact that fresh inquiry is directed implies that the order of the 2nd respondent stands reversed. There is nothing in the said section which prevents the first respondent from passing an order of remand after reversing the decision of the 2nd respondent. In view of the fact that the question debated before the appellate authority was not considered by the 2nd respondent, the appellate authority, in my view, has power to remand the matter to the 2nd respondent for determination of the question which arose for consideration. Therefore, it follows that under sub-section (8) of section 7, the appellate authority has power to remand the case to the original authority for fresh disposal; consequently the first respondent was right in remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent.

( 5 ) FOR the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document