Back
AMIT RAWAL
Secretary, Sree Avittom Thirunal Hospital – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Rep. By The Secretary, Department of Labour – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The court examined whether the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act are applicable to appeals filed under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The court concluded that such provisions are not applicable because the Payment of Gratuity Act explicitly excludes the application of limitation periods for filing appeals, specifying a fixed limitation period of 60 days, with a possible extension of another 60 days for sufficient cause (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the limitation period prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act is specific and excludes the general applicability of the Limitation Act’s Section 5, which allows for condonation of delay. Therefore, delays beyond the prescribed period cannot be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act (!) .
The court clarified that the provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly Section 29(2), are applicable only to suits, appeals, and applications filed before courts, not to those filed before statutory authorities or tribunals, unless the specific law governing the proceedings expressly incorporates the Limitation Act (!) (!) .
The court reaffirmed that the legislative intent in the Payment of Gratuity Act was to set a strict limitation period for filing appeals, which cannot be extended or condoned through general provisions of the Limitation Act. This ensures the finality and timeliness of proceedings under the Act (!) (!) .
Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the rejection of the appeal on the ground of limitation was legally correct, given the specific exclusion of the Limitation Act’s provisions by the Payment of Gratuity Act (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
Order dated 10.12.2020 of the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kollam rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the controlling authority dated 28.3.2019 in G.C No.233 of 2018 being barred by law of limitation is under challenge and subsequent recovery proceedings brought on record vide interim application Exts.P10 and P11 which had been stayed for a period of six months.
2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are that an application under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act was filed by a workman namely Sindhu S on the ground that he had been working as a Senior Computer Operator with effect from 5.10.1998 and sought voluntary retirement on 16.3.2018. At the time of retirement, was drawing a sum of Rs.26,725/- as last drawn salary and claimed a sum of Rs.3,80,831/- as gratuity. The aforementioned application was numbered as GC 233 of 2018. Notice was issued to the petitioner Sree Avittam Thirunal Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and sought to file the written statement. Thereafter, remained absent; nor filed written statement and accordingly, on 29.1.2019 was proceeded ex-parte.
3. Learned Controlling authority vide order dated 28.3.2019 asses
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
