Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 2572
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
The Management M/s.HI-TECH INDUSTRIES – Appellant
Versus
1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour for Gratuity – Respondent
W.P.No.39834 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Manisekaran
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Surendran
The High Court cannot entertain Writ Petitions exceeding statutory limitation periods as set by the law.
Headnote:This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the first respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner argues erroneous calculation of gratuity and rejection of appeal based on limitation. The court determined that Writ Petitions cannot be entertained beyond statutory limits, referencing the Supreme Court decision in CCT Vs. M/s.Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to gratuity calculation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. limitation and statutes binding on court. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 6) |
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the first respondent the appropriate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act , 1972.
2. Heard Mr.V.Manisekaran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Management and Mr.K.Surendran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent. 3. Mr.V.Manisekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the gratuity has been erroneously calculated and ordered to be paid and only on the ground of limitation without considering the case on merits the appeal has been rejected. The learned counsel would submit that even the petitioner management has deposited the entire gratuity amount and the case can be considered on merits by this Court by giving an opportunity to the petitioner management.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
5. In this case, the petitioner had a right to file an appeal within a period of 60 days and the condonable outer limit is another 60 days. Though it is a little bit harsh on the petitioner management which filed the appeal after 155 days instead of 120 days, it has now been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of India that merely because the law of limitation visits the particular management with unduly harsh consequences, the High Court cannot entertain Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When these are matters subject to statutory regime of appeal which also contains period of limitation and an upper limit for condonation also, it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in CCT Vs. M/s.Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited , reported in (2020) 19 SCC 681, [1(2020) 19 SCC 681] that the High Court under Article 226 can neither enlarge period of limitation nor entertain the Writ Petition after the lapse of the statutory period.
6. In view thereof, I am of the view that the Writ Petition cannot be entertained. Finding no merits, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
02.01.2025 Neutral Citation : No dna To The Joint Commissioner of Labour for Gratuity Appellate Authority Labour Welfare Board Building
6th Floor, DMS Complex Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.
dna
02.01.2025
