The court emphasized the summary nature of the procedure for determining disputes under the Acts and the limited scope of interference with the findings of fact by the authorities.

K. Chandru, J.

1. The petitioner is a newspaper establishment covered by the provisions of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. The order of the first respondent, who is the appellate authority cum Deputy Chief Labor Commissioner (Central), under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 confirming the order passed by the second respondent in computing unpaid gratuity in favour of the third respondent is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 30.06.2010. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner got a direction to the second respondent not to disburse the amount of Rs. 47,015/-deposited by the petitioner to the credit of G.A. No. 11 of 2008 till the disposal of the writ petition. Though the third respondent filed an application in M.P. (MD). No. 1 of 2011 together with a supporting counter affidavit, dated 25.07.2011 for permission to withdraw 50% of the gratuity amount deposited, the said application has not been ordered till date. However, with the consent of both sides, the main writ petition itself was taken up for disposal.

3. It is seen from the records that the third respondent joined the services of the petitioner establishment on 01.11.1993. At the relevant time, he was paid salary through voucher payments. Thereafter, he was transferred to the newspaper by name 'Thinabhhoomi' as Editorial in-charge. He also claimed that he had signed the attendance register kept in the office and the time office, daily made a note of his entry. He was subsequently, promoted as News Editor of the 'Thinabhoomi' newspaper with effect from 01.11.1998. Only from that time onwards his salary was paid as per acquaintance register. On 31.05.2007, the third respondent resigned from his services. By that time, he had put on 13 years and 6 months service in the petitioner establishment and his last drawn salary was Rs. 7,234/-. He was not paid his gratuity due, though the Payment of Gratuity Act has been extended to the working journalists in terms of Section 5 of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. He made a claim before the second respondent, the controlling authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

4. The said controlling authority is notified by the Central Government as the petitioner establishment had branches in more than one State. Therefore, under the Payment of Gratuity Act the appropriate Government is the Central Government. The claim made by the third respondent was taken on file as G.A. No. 11/2008 by the second respondent. Notice was issued to the petitioner newspaper.

5. The petitioner filed a counter statement dated 19.06.2008 disputing the length of service claimed by the third respondent. It was the stand of the petitioner that the third respondent worked only for 8 years 7 months and he was not entitled for claiming gratuity for the service of 14 years. Though a feeble attempt was made to contend for the petitioner it is the State Government was the appropriate Government, the said contention was not pursued before this Court.

6. The second respondent on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and also the evidence tendered by the third respondent, framed five issues. In respect of the first issue i.e. whether the petitioner establishment comes within the jurisdiction of the second respondent, it was recorded that since the petitioner establishment also has editions published from Madurai, Chennai, Tiruchirappalli, Coimbatore, Tirunelveli, Salem, Puducherry, Vellore, Mumbai, Kochi and Bengaluru, in terms of Section 2(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 the proper Government is the Central Government. Therefore, that objection was overruled.

7. With reference to the second issue whether the application filed by the third respondent was time barred, the authority held that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the third r