The Controlling Authority must provide notice before condoning a delay in gratuity claims as mandated by law.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging Exhibit P3 order of the 2^nd respondent-the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), determining the gratuity claim of the 1^st respondent on account of service rendered under the petitioner as also Exhibit P5 order of the Appellate Authority, dismissing Exhibit P4 appeal filed against Exhibit P3 order.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a reading of Exhibit P3 order will indicate that the 1^st respondent had raised the claim for payment of gratuity nearly eight years from the date on which the 1^st respondent was allegedly terminated by the petitioner. It is submitted that while the provisions of the Act permit the consideration of an application for condonation of delay and imposes no upper limit for condonation of delay, the petitioner was entitled to notice before the application for condonation of delay was considered by the Controlling Authority. It is pointed out that Paragraph No.3 of Exhibit P3 will indicate that in the facts of the present case, the Controlling Authority had issued notice to the petitioner, after condoning the delay of nearly eight years in filing the application.

It is submitted that though this point was specifically raised in the appeal, the Appellate Authority also did not consider this contention. Attention of this Court is drawn to ground (D) of Exhibit P4 appeal where the petitioner has raised a contention that the condonation of delay without notice by the Controlling Authority cannot be sustained.

3. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the 1^st respondent.

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, I am of the view that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is right in contending that the Controlling Authority could not have condoned the delay in filing the application for determination of gratuity under the Act without notice to the petitioner. A reading of Paragraph No.3 of Exhibit P3 will indicate that in the facts of the present case, the Controlling Authority had condoned the delay and had then issued notice to the petitioner. Though this point was specifically raised before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority did not consider this contention raised by the petitioner.

Accordingly, Exhibit P3 and P5 orders are set aside and the claim of the 1^st respondent for payment of gratuity is restored to the file of the 2nd respondent, who shall issue notice on the application for condonation of delay and consider whether sufficient reason has been shown for the condonation of delay, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the 1^st respondent. In the event that the Controlling Authority decides to condone the delay, the petitioner shall be given every opportunity to contest the claim on merits.

Since it is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the 1^st respondent may not be in a position to engage a counsel and appear before the Controlling Authority, the Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Wayanad. On receipt of copy of this judgment, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Wayanad will contact the 1^st respondent and offer all assistance for conducting the case before the Controlling Authority.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-