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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2952

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, JJ.
Chintadripet Co-operative Society Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Joint Commissioner of Labour for Gratuity – Respondent
W.A.No.1389 of 2022 and CMP.No.8940 of 2022
Decided on : 06-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Dhalapathy Vignesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mrs.E.Ranganayaki, Mr.Govind Chandrasekar

The employer must deposit the entire amount of payment of gratuity determined by the Controlling Authority and prefer an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Appellate Authority is empowered to condone the period of 60 days if the appeal is not filed within the stipulated period and the maximum period for the authority to entertain the appeal is 120 days.

Headnote:

Payment of Gratuity Act - Appeal - Sections 7(7), 7(3A), 8 - The court held that the employer must deposit the entire amount of payment of gratuity determined by the Controlling Authority and prefer an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Appellate Authority is empowered to condone the period of 60 days if the appeal is not filed within the stipulated period and the maximum period for the authority to entertain the appeal is 120 days. The court also highlighted the provisions of Sections 7(3A) and 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the relevant notifications specifying the rates of interest payable in case of delayed payment of gratuity.

Fact of the Case:

The employer filed a Writ Appeal against the order dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the employer had not complied with the pre-requisite of depositing the entire amount determined by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, before preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the employer must deposit the entire amount of payment of gratuity determined by the Controlling Authority and prefer an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Appellate Authority is empowered to condone the period of 60 days if the appeal is not filed within the stipulated period and the maximum period for the authority to entertain the appeal is 120 days.

Issues: Compliance with the pre-requisite of depositing the entire amount determined by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, before preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The employer must deposit the entire amount of payment of gratuity determined by the Controlling Authority and prefer an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Appellate Authority is empowered to condone the period of 60 days if the appeal is not filed within the stipulated period and the maximum period for the authority to entertain the appeal is 120 days.

Final Decision: The Writ Appeal is disposed of with the direction for the release of the amount lying to the credit of P.G.A.No.199/2017 and the payment of the remaining 50% amount together with interest at 10% p.a. within a period of three months. In case of non-payment within three months, the rate of interest payable is 15% p.a.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the order dated 25.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.3843/2022 and allow the Writ Appeal.

The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 25.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.3843/2022 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the employer has not complied with the pre-requisite of depositing the entire amount determined by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, before preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the said Act.

2. The employer has filed a Writ Petition earlier, namely, W.P.No.27942/2014 by availing the appellate remedy and suffered an order of dismissal by this Court and the relevant paragraph is extracted here under:

    ''3. Admittedly, the order impugned is appealable. This Court does not find any violation of principles of natural justice, warranting interference through discretionary power available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed.

4. The petitioner is given four weeks' time for filing statutory appeal by applying the principle governing Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The said appeal will have to be taken up as if it is within limitation and thereafter decided on merits.

5. The petitioner has deposited 50% of the amount ordered by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The private respondent has suffered despite the order in his favour. Therefore, the private respondent is permitted to withdraw the aforesaid amount without prejudice to the contentions on merits by both sides. The said withdrawal is also subject to the final order to be passed in the appeal.

6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.'' The employer, based on the said order, has approached the authority to deposit 50% of the amount and the appellate authority refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that the entire amount will have to be deposited in terms of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and without such deposit, no appeal could be entertained. Aggrieved by the said portion of the Appellate Authority, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.3843/2022 has been filed and the learned Single Judge has passed the following Order:

''Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that inasmuch as this Court in the order dated 23.06.2017 in W.P.No.27942 of 2014 had required the appeal filed by the petitioner to be decided on merits, the First Respondent could not have refused to entertain the same by citing that the entire amount of pre-deposit had not been made. It is not possible to countenance such claim when the pre-deposit is a mandatory requirement to entertain the appeal. Moreover, this Court had not granted any exemption to the petitioner from such Pre-deposit and the mere circumstance that the Fourth Respondent had been permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount that had been earlier deposited cannot entitle the petitioner to claim waiver of that statutory requirement.''

3. When there is a statutory provision which contemplates a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the employer will have to deposit the entire amount of payment of gratuity determined by the Controlling Authority and prefer an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Controlling Authority. However, the Appellate Authority is empowered to condone the period of 60 days if the appeal is not filed within the stipulated period and the maximum period for the authority to entertain the appeal is 120 days beyond which he becomes functus officio.

4. In the present case on hand, the appeal has not been filed within a period of 120 days. That apart, no amount was deposited before the Controlling Authority before filing the appeal. Though this Court has passed an order directing the employer to remit 50% of the amount, the order of the appellate authority in not en

      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 Back to top