Back
2006 Supreme(Bom) 758
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Metal Box India Ltd
Versus
Rangari, Asst. Commissioner of Labour
Decided on Judgment MAY 2, 2006
The court emphasized that the appellate authority had no power to condone the delay of more than 120 days and that the issue of jurisdiction cannot be determined for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The court also rejected the contention that s. 22 of the SICA Act applied.
Headnote:
Payment of Gratuity Act - Jurisdiction - SICA Act, 1985 - [PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972] - [SECTION 7(7)] - The court dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, and the appellate authority had no power to condone the delay of more than 120 days. The issue of jurisdiction was raised, but the court held that it cannot be determined for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The court also rejected the contention that s. 22 of the SICA Act applied, based on previous judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Bombay, dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner contended that the order passed by the appellate authority was erroneous and that the controlling authority itself was without jurisdiction. The petitioner also raised the issue of the applicability of s. 22 of the SICA Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal was barred by the law of limitation and that the appellate authority had no power to extend the delay of more than 120 days. The court also held that the issue of jurisdiction cannot be determined for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The court rejected the contention that s. 22 of the SICA Act applied.
Issues: The issues included the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation, the jurisdiction of the controlling authority, and the applicability of s. 22 of the SICA Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appeal was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation and that the issue of jurisdiction cannot be determined for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The court also rejected the contention that s. 22 of the SICA Act applied.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1 of 1956 and have various units in different states. It is the case of the petitioners that in 1987 the worth of the company got fully eroded and there was a negative wealth and accordingly the companys management suspended operations of all its manufacturing units and approached BIFR for a revival scheme, On 27. 5. 88 the BIFR declared the company as a SICK undertaking within the meaning of section 3 (1) (c) of SICA, 1985. In 1988 the present management took over the company and ultimately reopened the Mahol Unit in july, 1988 and the Deonar Unit in October, 1988. In 1992 they reopened the Bombay unit. On 10. 11. 85 the Honble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 1018795 directed the company to submit the scheme of rehabilitation under the SICA Act. On 31. 12. 95 the rehabilitation scheme was formulated and forwarded to BIFR by the operating agency. On 8. 3. 96 the BIFR formulated private rehabilitation scheme which was circulated and published. On 26. 4. 96 BIFR heard the suggestions and objections of the parties and thereafter sanctioned the BIFR scheme. An appeal was preferred against the said order and ultimately the writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court relating to certain disputes.
( 3 ) SOMETIME thereafter Delhi High Court remanded the matter for reconsideration of the scheme to AAIFR and on 18. 8. 00 after reconsidering the said scheme the AAIFR sanctioned the scheme prepared by the operating agency with certain modifications. On 16. 7. 01 the scheme of ICICI being the operating agency was brought in operation.
( 4 ) ON 30. 11. 99 the controlling authority passed a common order against the petitioners in respect of Payment of Gratuity Act to various employees. Sometime in or about 2000 after the order was served on the petitioners, the petitioners by claiming descripancies in the order filed a Misc. Application to set aside the said exparte order dt. 30. 11. 99. On 17. 10. 00 the controlling authority has by an impugned order rejected the said application for recall or setting aside of the exparte order dt. 30. 11. 99. Being aggrieved by the said order 17. 10. 00 the petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate Authority under section 7 subsection 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. However, the petitioners did not deposit the amount as per the order passed by the Controlling Authority as required under the provisions of the said Act and therefore, the said appeal was not registered. On 25. 1. 01, the Registry of the Appellate Authority forwarded a letter interalia pointing out that under the provisions of subsection 7 of section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the appellants are required to produce a certificate of the Controlling Authority to the effect that the appellants have deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of Gratuity required to be deposited or that the amount has been deposited with appellate authority. In view of the fact that the petitioners had not deposited the aforesaid amount, the petitioners appeal was not registered. Thereafter the union filed a writ petition no. 2732 of 2001 before this court against the Collector and the Company for enforcement of the said order dt. 17. 10. 00. In the said writ petition, this court by an order dt. 3. 5. 02 directed the petitioners to deposit the amount of Gratuity in accordance with the recovery certificate and further directed that only after depositing the said amount, the petitioners can sell the Worli factory. In accordance with the said order the petitioners deposited the amount of Rs. 53,42,440/- in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. On 16. 11. 02 the appellate authority dismissed the appeal interal
