JUDGMENT :

P.D. Audikesavalu, J.

(Through Video Conference)

1. Heard Mr. T. Sundar Rajan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. K.S.L. Narain, learned Counsel for the Second Respondent [sic First Respondent] and Mr. D. Sathyaraj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Second to Fourth Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. The First Respondent, who had been employed as Lecturer in the Computer Science and Engineering Department in the Educational Institution of the Petitioner from 9.7.2001 onwards, claims that she had resigned from service on 18.1.2013 and had made a request in writing for payment of Gratuity under Section 7(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) on 20.7.2016, 23.6.2017 and 25.1.2018 to the Petitioner, who had refused to entertain the same. Thereafter, the First Respondent made an Application under Section 7(4) of the Act before the Second Respondent along with a Petition in P.G.I.A. No. 29 of 2018 to condone the delay of 1875 days in filing the same. The Petitioner, who had entered appearance on 14.6.2018 in the said proceedings, had sought time for filing Counter-Affidavit in the said Petition to condone delay. According to the Petitioner, the Second Respondent had condoned the delay in filing the Application for Gratuity by Order, dated 2.7.2018 as no Counter had been filed by the Petitioner till that date. The Petitioner thereafter claims to have made an Application on 19.11.2018 to set aside the ex parte Order in the Petition for condoning the delay in filing the Application for Gratuity, and by Order, dated 8.1.2019, it was dismissed by the Second Respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the Order, dated 2.7.2018 in P.G.I.A. No. 29 of 2018 and to consider the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Petitioner and consequentially decide the matter on merits.

3. It must, at once, be pointed out here that when the Act came into force on 16.9.1972, an Employee could make an Application for payment of Gratuity under the Explanation to Section 7(4)(a) of the Act only after requiring the Employer to deposit the Gratuity amount and the Employer has failed to do so. In that backdrop, Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' for short), which were made in the exercise of powers under Section 15(1) of the Act, provides as follows:

"10. Application to Controlling Authority for direction.-- (1) If an Employer:

(i) refuses to accept a nomination or to entertain an Application sought to be filed under Rule 7, or

(ii) issues a Notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 either specifying an amount of Gratuity which is considered by the Applicant less than what is payable or rejecting eligibility to payment of Gratuity, or

(iii) having received an Application under Rule 7 fails to issue any Notice as required under Rule 8 within the time specified therein, the Claimant Employee, Nominee or Legal Heir, as the case may be, may, within ninety days of the occurrence of the cause for the Application, apply in Form 'N' to the Controlling Authority for issuing a direction under sub-section (4) of Section 7 with as many extra copies as are the Opposite Parties:

Provided that the Controlling Authority may accept any Application under this sub-rule, on sufficient cause being shown by the Applicant, after the expiry of the specified period.

(2) Application under sub-rule (1) and other documents relevant to such an Application shall be presented in person to the Controlling Authority or shall be sent by registered post acknowledgement due."

However, amendments have been made by Act 25 of 1984 with effect from 1.7.1984 and Act 22 of 1987 with effect from 1.10.1987 by which the Act provides in Section 7(4)(b) that an Employee may str