The High Court held that the Appellate Authority acted beyond its powers by issuing directions to the Controlling Authority after dismissing an appeal solely on jurisdictional grounds without admission.
The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 wp-2462-11
I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
jmi
WRIT PETITION NO. 2462 OF 2011.
Ramchandra Ballaya Samal. ..Petitioner. vs. A.K. Agarwal, The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act & Anr. ..Respondents.
Mr. P.M. Patel, for Petitioner. Mrs. Meena H. Doshi,for Respondent No.2.
.... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 17TH JANUARY 2012.
P.C. :
Heard the Learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
and directs the Controlling Authority to cancel the recovery certificate dated 6th September 2011.
2 wp-2462-11
3 wp-2462-11
the Appeal afresh provided that Respondent No.2 deposited the entire amount as adjudicated by the Controlling Authority within a period of four weeks. On such deposit, the Petitioner was entitled to move the Appellate Authority for withdrawal of the entire amount and/or atleast the undisputed amount. It was further provided that if any such Application is made by the Petitioner, the Appellate Authority may pass appropriate orders as it deemed fit. The issue of limitation was also kept open and the Appellate Court was to decide the same in accordance with law.
However, the Appellate Authority proceeded to give directions as to how the amount deposited by the Respondent No. 2 (NTC) should be disbursed. The Appellate Authority also directed the Controlling Authority to cancel the Recovery Certificate dated 6th September 2011.
4 wp-2462-11
admitting the Appeal for want of jurisdiction, the Appellate Authority cannot give any directions to the Controlling Authority or to the parties as is done in the impugned order. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents has submitted that if this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the Petitioner should not withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,82,039/deposited with the Appellate Authority, since the Respondent No. 2 is desirous of obtaining a stay on such withdrawal, in an independent Writ Petition which the Respondent No.2 proposes to file, challenging certain orders by which the Respondent No.2 is aggrieved.
[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Authority could issue directions to the Controlling Authority after rejecting an appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the impugned order was passed without application of mind given the jurisdictional defect.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramchandra Ballaya Samal
A.K. Agarwal
S.J. Kathawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
