The court clarified the interpretation of Rule 10 and Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, emphasizing the authority's discretion to accept applications after the prescribed period and the lack of necessity for sending an application to the employer for the controlling authority's jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Shamusuddin, J.—The petitioner was the employer of the third respondent. According to the third respondent, he was under the service of the petitioner for the period from February 1, 1984, to December 30, 1989. According to the petitioner, the third respondent was in his service only for the period from May 27, 1986, to December 8, 1989. It is also the case of the petitioner that without informing him, the third respondent absented from duly with effect from December 8, 1989, and, thereafter, nothing was heard about him and on enquiry, it was found that he is engaged as a Foreman in the Thankam Match Industries.

The petitioner was served with a copy of application submitted by the third respondent before the second respondent claiming gratuity to the tune of Rs. 7,200. Exhibit P-1 is the formal application. The petitioner submitted an objection, Exhibit P-2. Thereafter, the third respondent filed a replication. The third respondent was examined on August 8, 1992, He also filed the copy of application filed earlier to the controlling authority, which was not in the prescribed form. Exhibit R-3(a) is the said application. The case was posted to January 4, 1991, for examination of the petitioner who was the opposite party. At the request of counsel for the petitioner (opposite party), the case was again adjourned to October 10, 1991, then to October 30, 1991, and finally to November 20, 1991. On November 20, 1991, also, the petitioner and his counsel were absent. Accordingly, the case was taken for orders and ultimately Exhibit P-3 order was passed on December 11, 1991. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, but it was dismissed by proceedings, Exhibit P-8 dated June 30, 1992.

2. In this original petition, the petitioner challenges Exhibits P-3 and P-8. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following points; (1) The application was barred by operation of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), which prescribes a period of 90 days of the occurrence of the cause of action for submitting the application; (2) There is no dispute to prefer an application and as such the application is not maintainable; (3) There is no demand as provided in Section 7 of the Act and for this reason also the application is not maintainable; and (4) The petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to contest the matter.

3. It is true that Rule 10 lays down that an application to the controlling authority should be presented within a period of 90 days of the occurrence of cause of action and proviso to the said rules states that any application under this sub-rule, on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant, the authority may accept the application after the expiry of the said period. In the instant case, a formal application was filed only on February 21, 1991, beyond the period of 90 days prescribed by the rule.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no application to condone the delay giving sufficient reasons for the belated presentation of the application. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that before making the formal application, Exhibit P-1, the third respondent had submitted an application which is marked as Exhibit P-3 (a) by the appellate authority. I went through Exhibit P-3(a) and found that the third respondent has given some reasons for not being able to present the application earlier. No doubt, Exhibit P-3 order does not disclose that it was specifically considered. Nothing has been stated in the order about the delay. A reading of the proviso to Rule 10 indicates that a separate petition to condone the delay is not mandatory and the only requirement is that the authority must be satisfied that there is sufficient cause for the delay in presenting the application. It is true that in the objection filed by the petitioner, specific point has been raised in regard to the delay in filing the repr