The 30-day limitation for setting aside ex-parte orders under the Tamil Nadu Gratuity Rules is directory, allowing for reasonable grounds for delay while prioritizing employee welfare.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

The second respondent herein - N.Bhojan was employed under the appellant - Tea Manufacturer, at their dispensary and office management department, as pharmacist and Officer in-charge on July 16, 1991. He resigned on March 31, 2019. According to the second respondent, he served for totally 28 years under the appellant - Tea Manufacturer and received a sum of Rs.33,500/- (basic pay + dearness allowance + incentive) as last drawn wages. He submitted an application for gratuity claiming Rs.5,41,154/- with 10% interest thereon from May 1, 2019, in Form-I under Rule 7 (1) of 'the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 ' ['Gratuity Rules' for short] on October 9, 2020 before the appellant - Tea Manufacturer. As there was no response on the application, he approached the controlling authority / first respondent under Rule 10 of the Gratuity Rules. Despite notice, the appellant did not file counter and participate in the enquiry. Hence, after considering the application and the documents marked (Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.6), the first respondent passed an Ex-parte Order on February 28, 2023 under Rule 11 (4) read with Rule 11 (5) of the Gratuity Rules fixing the payment of gratuity at Rs.5,41,154/- and directing the appellant to pay the same along with 10% simple interest thereon from the date the amount was payable.

2. Then the appellant filed an 'application under Rule 11 (5) of the Gratuity Rules praying to set aside the Ex-parte Order dated February 28, 2023 passed by first respondent' ['the set aside application' for convenience] along with an 'application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to condone the delay of 316 days in filing the set aside application' ['the delay condonation application' for convenience]. Though these applications were dated January 9, 2024, they were received by the first respondent only on July 19, 2024. The first respondent vide their Order in proceedings in A.TI.MU.E1/4172/2024 dated July 25, 2024, returned the said applications by stating that they were received 30 days beyond the date of Ex-parte Order passed by first respondent. The Order dated July 25, 2024 passed by the first respondent shall hereinafter be called 'the Impugned Order'.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the appellant - Tea Manufacturer filed a writ of certiorarified mandamus before this Court in W.P.No.28254 of 2024 praying to quash the same, and direct the first respondent to entertain the delay condonation application and the set aside application, and decide the same on merits. A learned Single Judge of this Court concluded that as per the proviso to Rule 11 (5) of the Gratuity Rules, a petition to set aside the Order passed under Rule 11 (5) must be presented within 30 days from the date of that Order and since the appellant missed the bus, the first respondent rightly rejected the applications on the point of limitation. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

4. Challenging the said dismissal Order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has come up with this writ appeal.

5. Mr.P.Raghunathan for M/s.T.Gopalan and Co., Counsel on record for the appellant