Dismissed

Kandula Srinivasa Reddy Memorial College of Engineering, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Sept 2021WP/15012/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed three writ petitions questioning the condonation of significant delays in filing gratuity applications. Holding that the Act is beneficial welfare legislation, the court ruled that substantial justice should prevail over technical objections to delay, as the core dispute involves the entitlement to gratuity rather than procedural lapses, and merits should be adjudicated later.

What did the court decide?

The three writ petitions questioning the condonation of delay were dismissed with no costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in these writ petitions stand closed.

Kandula Srinivasa Reddy Memorial… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.S.10655, 14903 and 15012 of 2021

¶2

COMMON ORDER :

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the answering respondent. Other respondents are formal parties. All the three Writ Petitions are filed questioning the condonation of delay by the 2^nd respondent in these cases.

¶4

The 3^rd respondent in these Writ Petitions are the people who have worked in the present Writ Petitioner‟s college. Since they have not paid gratuity, they made an application before 2^nd respondent for payment of gratuity under Andhra Pradesh Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972(for short „The Act‟). At the time of filing of applications, they filed a delay application praying to condone the delay in filing main application. In W.P.No.10655 of 2021, the delay is 78 days, in W.P.No.14903 of 2021 the delay is 1155 days and in W.P.No.15012 of 2021 the delay is 1813 days. All the applications were allowed and the delay was condoned. Questioning the same, these three Writ Petitions were filed.

¶5

Sri Shaik Mohammad Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that sufficient cause is not shown by the applicants for condoning the delay. He also submits that in two cases, the delay is more than 1000 days which was mechanically allowed by the 2^nd respondent. He points out that clear and sufficient explanation for the delay has not been given

¶6

¶7

and that there are no justifiable ground or reasons. Therefore, the learned counsel argues that the 2^nd respondent committed an error in condoning the delay and that the case law on the subject is very clear and the every day delay should have to be explained categorically.

¶8

In reply to this, Sri.L.K.Veera Reddy argues that the impugned order is a reasoned order passed after consideration of provisions of law and also the facts. He points out that after retirement, the petitioners institution has a duty to settle the gratuity. The Respondent No.3 in these three Writ Petitions made applications which were neither denied nor allowed. Therefore, he argues that there is a delay on the part of the employer also. Apart from that, he argues that the respondents are workmen and as the Act is a welfare legislation, it should be liberally interpreted in favour of the workmen. Lastly, he submits that the Rules 7 and 10 of Andhra Pradesh Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972(for short „the Rules‟) which are referred to in the impugned order shows that the application can be filed for payment of gratuity with delay condonation before the employer and before the authority also. Therefore, Sri.L.J.Veera Reddy argues that idea behind the legislation is to permit an employee to seek his gratuity even with the delay. Lastly, he submits that the case law considered by the authority is also correct and fully applicable to the facts of the case.

¶9

The law on the subject with reference to the condonation of delay is sufficient and clear. It is not the length of the delay but the cause that is given is important. Every days

¶10

¶11

delay need not be explained. The Respondent No.3 in three(3) Writ Petitions have filed an application for payment of gratuity. This was neither decided nor denied. In addition, Rule 7 clause 5 of the Rules also provides for filing of an application for payment of gratuity after the expiry of the period before the employer. Any dispute in that regard and in regard to the condonation of delay shall be referred to the controlling authority. Similarly Rule 10 of the Rules also states that if the employer fails to act within the stipulated time, the claimant can file an application seeking direction. Therefore, from a reading of these two rules, which are referred to in the impugned order, it is clear that unlike other enactments, benefit of condoning delay is given at two stages i.e., before the employer and before the quasi judicial authority also. Apart from this, it is also clear that the applicants have addressed letters which were neither answered nor denied. As rightly observed by the Tribunal/Respondent No.2 the Act is a beneficial legislation which is enacted for the welfare of the workers to claim their right of gratuity after rendering the stipulated service. In the opinion of this Court, the case law relied upon and reproduced in the order is also applicable.

¶12

The counter filed before the authority in the lower Court does not essentially talks of lack of a sufficient cause. It is also mentioned that the delay is not properly explained. In the opinion of this Court, the Respondent No.3 in these three(3) Writ Petitions have explained the cause for the delay by stating that they have filed applications and are waiting for the petitioners to

¶13

¶14

react as required under the law and they were pursuing their remedies before the employer. But as the employer did not pay the gratuity, they were forced to approach the authority.

¶15

Therefore, taking a purposive of the interpretation of the rules and the idea behind the Act, this Court is of the opinion that merely by condonation of delay in these cases, the petitioners will not suffer irreparable loss. The matter needs to be adjudicated on merits. All the issues can be raised before the Tribunal which will necessarily have to decide the matter on merits. Throwing out the application at the threshold only on the ground of “unexplained delay” is not correct. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners have an effective remedy of raising all the legal pleas that are touched upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the submissions. The law is also settled that when substantial justice is pritted against technical objection it is the cause of justice that should prevail.

¶16

Considering all the issues, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in these Writ Petitions and all the three Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶17

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶18

___________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

¶19

Date : 13.09.2021 TM

¶20

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶22

Writ Petition Nos.10655, 14903 and 15012 of 2021 Dated : 13.09.2021

¶23

Kandula Srinivasa Reddy Memorial College of Engineering, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandula Srinivasa Reddy Memorial College of Engineering, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Krishna Kishore Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shavukari Meena Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lankayapalle Vara Prasad Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kandula Srinivasa Reddy Memorial College of Engineering Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kandula Srinivasa Reddy Memorial College of Engineering, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D Mallikarjuna Rao Vs the State of Ap