SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Mad) 190

S.N.SUNDARAM
Madura Coats Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Labour – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. In these two writ petitions, applications were preferred by persons, stated to be employees of the petitioner, for determination of the amount of gratuity under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 39 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The applications were not preferred within the time prescribed. There is a move to have the delay condoned. The first respondent in these two writ petitions, without first deciding the question of condonation of delay would say, by the impugned orders, that the main applications themselves would be considered, both on merits as well as from the angle of delay. Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, does prescribe a time limit for preferring an application of present nature. When there is a delay in preferring the application, the authority has to condone the delay, on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant. This he must do first. This is the implication of the proviso to Rule 10(1) of the Rules. The general rule is that every application which has got to be preferred within a time prescribed therefor, if riot so preferred, shall be dism

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top