The appropriate Government for establishments with branches in multiple States is the Central Government, and any authority decisions made without jurisdiction are null and void.

ORDER

The above Writ petition has been filed by the respondent-

Management challenging the order dated 05.02.2024 in Gratuity Case No.14 of 2024.

2. Without going into merits of the case, the ground on which the above writ petition is filed is that, since the petitioner has branches in more than one State, it is only the Central Government which is the appropriate Government. Section 2 (a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act states that an establishment has branches in more than one State, the appropriate Government is the Central Government. This fact is also known to the 2^nd respondent herein, as he himself, in the legal notice dated 08.07.2022, mentioned that he has branches in Bihar as well as in Chennai.

3. In support of the argument, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in 2002 1 LLN 1175 [ Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd vs Appellate Authority ] which was also a case where the petitioner has branches in more than one State and the orders had been passed by the Appellate authority under the State Government. After extracting various judgments, the learned Judges had held as follows:

“16. Therefore, the legal principle which is established is that if the plea raised goes to the root of the question and concerns inherent lack of jurisdiction of the court deciding the matter, such plea could be allowed to be raised even at a later stage, for it goes to very root of the matter. Such a plea concerning inherent lack of jurisdiction of court to decide the matter could be raised before the High Court in a writ jurisdiction, for the first time, and such a plea is required to be entertained to do justice amongst the parties. On the other hand, if the plea raised concerns lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, the same could be waived by a party by submitting to its jurisdiction and by not raising at the earlier stage. Therefore, it is necessary to apply the aforesaid settled principles of law to the facts of the present case. In this case, as delineated above, it is established that the appropriate Government under the present case is the Central Government as the petitioner-management has branches in more than one State, and not the State Government. The Controlling Authority of the State Government has exercised its jurisdiction in the present case on the basis of the application filed by the respondent No. 2. On an appropriate interpretation of the provisions of S. 2 of the Act it is established that the said authority appointed by the State Government has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter. Therefore, the said authority lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and it is not a case of either want of pecuniary jurisdiction or territorial jurisdiction, which could be waived. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, it is the Controller Authority appointed by the Central Government, who would have jurisdiction to entertain and decide this mater and not the State Government. Consequently, it is also held that the Controller Authority in which the aforesaid application under S. 4 of the Act was filed and by whom it was entertained and a case was instituted on the basis thereof, was entirely lacking in jurisdiction and it was incompetent to try and decide the same.

Therefore, whatever orders are passed in the said proceeding or in the subsequent proceeding arising out of it, namely in the appeal were null and void as consent of parties could not operate to confer jurisdiction on the said authority, which was incompetent to try the aforesaid proceeding.

17. In my considered opinion, the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Hira Lal case (vide supra) and Rattan Lal Sharma [ 1993 (2) L.L.N. 253 ] (vide supra), s squarely apply to t