The court determined that jurisdictional issues regarding the Controlling Authority should be resolved by the Appellate Authority, allowing the appeal despite delays.

Headnote:(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - The authority held that gratuity is payable for muster roll periods; the court discusses delay in filing an appeal and jurisdiction of the authority. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court ruled that the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority should first be determined before the Appellate Authority, allowing appeal delay to be excused. (Paras 6-9)

(C) Costs - Petitioner ordered to pay costs of Rs.25,000 to the respondent. (Paras 8-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the liability to pay gratuity to respondents for muster roll periods and sought to condone delays in filing appeals.

Findings of Court:
The Court allowed the petitioner to appeal against the authority’s order within four weeks, condoning the delay.

Issues: Main issues included the applicability of the Act during the muster roll period and appeal jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that jurisdictional challenges must be addressed by the Appellate Authority regardless of appeal delays and that costs were imposed based on the circumstances of the case.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to payment of gratuity order. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding appeal applicability and validity. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. court's directive on appeal and stay of recovery. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. disposal of the petition with costs. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of the learned Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, wherein the petitioner was held liable to make the payment of gratuity to the respondents/workmen even for the period when they were on the muster roll.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will not be applicable for the period when these respondents were on the muster roll. It has been submitted that the statutory appeal, as provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, could not be filed within the prescribed period and there was a delay of about 20 to 30 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the prescribed period had expired, they could not file the appeal. It has been submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the petitioner may be permitted to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/workmen has submitted that the present petitions have been filed just to harass the respondent/workmen. It has been submitted that the impugned orders were passed sometime between January and first week of February, 2022 and that the petitioner did not institute an appeal within the prescribed period without any valid reason and therefore the present petitions are liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the Controlling Authority has passed valid and reasoned orders relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2018)5 SCC 430.

5. Earlier, this Court in W.P.(C) 4912/2022 titled Public Works Department vs. Nanji Lal And Anr., in identical facts, has inter alia held as under:

"6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, in Union of India v. Ramesh Chand (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 held as under:

"11. Considering the fact that the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority itself is being disputed by the Union of India, this Court is of the opinion that the said issue deserves to first be considered by the Appellate Authority as it goes to the root of the matter itself. If the Controlling Authority did not have jurisdiction under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the order would be liable to be challenged by the Union of India and the period of limitation prescribed under the Act may not apply. In these circumstances, the issue of jurisdiction having been raised, this Court is of the opinion that the said issue ought to be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Appeal ought not to be rejected simply on the ground of being barred by limitation. In view of the above discussion, the following directions are issued:

(i) The matters are remanded back to the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The delay in filing the appeal by the Union of India before the Appellate Authority shall stand condoned and shall not come in the way of the issue as to applicability of the Act from being adjudicated. The appeals shall be heard on the issue of jurisdiction raised by the Union of India considering the legal position as held in Union of India v. Manik Lal Banerjee (supra). The Authority shall hear all parties concerned and decide the said issue.

(ii) In the meantime, the recovery notice shall be stayed, subject to the workmen being paid the admitted amount of 50% of the muster roll period, in terms of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The said payment shall be made on or before the first date of hearing before the Appellate Authority. Any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

The court determined that jurisdictional issues regarding the Controlling Authority should be resolved by the Appellate Authority, allowing the appeal despite delays.

Related Judgments

Public Works Department vs Pappu

Public Works Department vs Raja Ram

Public Works Department vs Rani

Public Works Department vs Bhagwati

Public Works Department vs Badle Ram

Public Works Department vs Ganga Bai

Public Works Department vs Mohinder Singh

Public Works Department vs Budho Devi

Public Works Department vs Chander Kala

Public Works Department vs Mangat Ram