A single writ petition cannot be maintained against multiple orders passed in interlocutory applications arising out of distinct claims, as each claim and application has a distinct and separate cause of action.

Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - SINGLE WRIT PETITION - MULTIPLE CAUSES OF ACTION - PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 - SECTION 7(4) - CONDONATION OF DELAY - INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS - DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION - MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION - SINGLE WRIT PETITION NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, EID Parry India Limited, sought permission to file a single writ petition against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act), Chennai, condoning the delay in filing applications under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by 39 employees. The employees had claimed gratuity, including incentive earnings, after ceasing to be employees between 1982 and 1989. The petitioner resisted the applications on various grounds, arguing that the claims were time-barred and that the employees had failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner could not maintain a single writ petition against the orders passed in the 39 interlocutory applications, as each employee had a distinct and separate cause of action. The court noted that the claims of each employee were for a different sum, depending on the date of their superannuation and the quantum of last drawn salary, and that the cause of action for filing the claims and the applications to condone the delay were also distinct and separate.
Issues: 1. Whether a single writ petition can be maintained against multiple orders passed in interlocutory applications arising out of distinct claims under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 2. Whether the cause of action for each claim and application is distinct and separate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a single writ petition cannot be maintained against multiple orders passed in interlocutory applications arising out of distinct claims, as each claim and application has a distinct and separate cause of action. 2. The court relied on several Supreme Court and Madras High Court precedents to support its decision, including Dhanyalakshmi Rice Mills and Others v. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Another, P. Radhakrishna Naidu and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, and Narendrakumar J. Modi v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II, Ahmedabad.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ miscellaneous petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to maintain a single writ petition and that it had to file separate writ petitions challenging each one of the orders passed in each one of the Interlocutory Applications arising out of separate Payment of Gratuity Applications.

JUDGMENT :

E. Padmanabhan, J.—The writ petitioner in W.P.SR. No. 70689 of 1999, the management of EID Parry India Limited, has taken out this application to permit the petitioner to file a single writ petition against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act), Chennai-6, the first respondent in LA. No. 140 to 179 of 1998 in P.G. Application Nos. 67 to 106 of 1999. Respondents Nos. 2 to 40 are the applicants in LA. Nos. 140 to 179 of 1998 in P.G. Application Nos. 67 to 106 of 1999 wherein they have sought for condonation of delay in filing the applications. The writ petitioner is the management and the petitioner-establishment is covered under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,which came into force on September 21, 1972.

2. According to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner-management had been paying gratuity as prescribed, while excluding the incentive earnings for the purpose of gratuity.

3. Respondents Nos. 2 to 40 were the employees and they ceased to be employees between 1982 and 1989. The said employees claimed for payment of gratuity and the petitioner-management accepted their claims and settled their dues. Thereafter, the employees on June 5, 1998, moved the first respondent u/s 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, claiming difference, as according to the employees the salary should also include the incentive earnings and on that basis gratuity has to be calculated. In filing such claims, there was delay and the employees were advised to file necessary applications to condone the delay. Respondents Nos. 2 to 40 filed applications seeking to condone the inordinate delay in preferring claims u/s 7(4) of Payment of Gratuity Act while seeking to explain the delay by assigning various reasons.

4. The said 39 applications to condone the delay were resisted by the writ petitioner-management on various grounds. Arguments were advanced in the said interlocutory applications, namely, LA. Nos. 140 to 179 of 1998, taken out to condone the delay ranging from 3081 days to 8966 days.

5. By a common order dated May 17, 1999, the first respondent allowed the applications and condoned the delay as sufficient cause had been shown by the employees/respondents Nos. 2 to 40. Being aggrieved by the order dated May 17, 1999, passed in I.A. 140 to 179 of 1998, the writ petitioner had filed the present writ petition praying for the issue of writ or certiorari to call for and quash the said orders.

6. The writ petitioner had taken out the present application to permit the petitioner-management to file a single writ petition against the order passed in I.A. Nos. 140 to 179 of 1998, as according to the writ petitioner it is a common order and that single writ petition could be maintained.

7. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application it has been set out that the petitioner should be permitted to file a single writ petition challenging the common order passed by the first respondent in the 34 interlocutory applications.

8. Learned counsel Mr. Ibrahim Kalifullah, appearing for T.S. Gopalan & Co., placed reliance on a Division Bench pronouncement of this Court in General Manager, EID Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others, (1995) 1 LLJ 757, in support of his contention that a single writ petition at the instance of the writ petitioner-management is maintainable in that case. The Division Bench, while considering the said question, held thus, General Manager, EID Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others, (1995) 1 LLJ 757:

"13. The learned single Judge has relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sellakumar Talkies v. Board of Revenue, [1984] WLRSuppl. 113, in support of his conclusion that one writ peti tion is not maintainable in the present case. The observation relied by the learned Judge is really obiter. On the facts of the case, the Bench found that one writ petition was m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRASE. Padmanabhan, J.MANAGEMENT, E.I.D. PARRY INDIA LTD. — AppellantVs.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR-I AND OTHERS — RespondentW.M.P. No. 21411 of 1999 in W.P.SR. No. 70689 of 1999Decided on : 04-11-1999

A single writ petition cannot be maintained against multiple orders passed in interlocutory applications arising out of distinct claims, as each claim and application has a distinct and separate cause of action.

Cases Referred (7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
E. Padmanabhan, J.
MANAGEMENT, E.I.D. PARRY INDIA LTD. — Appellant
Vs.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR-I AND OTHERS — Respondent
W.M.P. No. 21411 of 1999 in W.P.SR. No. 70689 of 1999
Decided on : 04-11-1999