Dismissed

National Textile Corporation Ltd. ( Western Region). v. Ramchandra Ballaya Samal.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2012WP/617/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition impugning orders under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The court held that the petitioner, having failed to appeal the initial order within the statutory time limit, could not approach the High Court for writ relief after a significant delay. There was no cause of failure of the statutory remedy and the delay was inexcusable.

What the court decided

AI extract

National Textile Corporation Ltd. ( Western… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 wp-l-96-12

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

jmi

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 96 OF 2012.

¶5

National Textile Corporation Limited. ..Petitioner.

¶6

vs.

¶7

Ramchandra Ballaya Samal. ..Respondent. ....

¶8

Ms.Meena Doshi, for Petitioner. Mr. P.M. Patel, for Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 24TH JANUARY 2012.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The above Petition is filed by the Petitioner - National Textile Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as NTC Limited). The same is taken up for Admission.

¶12

NTC Limited has by the present Petition impugned the order dated 2^nd December 2009 passed by the Controlling Authority, qua the gratuity payable to the Respondent and the order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act dated 18^th November 2011.

¶13

The Respondent had filed an Application before the Controlling Authority claiming gratuity. The said Application was contested by NTC Limited. After hearing the parties, the Controlling Authority by an order dated 2^nd December 2009 held that the Respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,82,039/- towards the gratuity with 10% interest thereon.

¶14

2 wp-l-96-12

¶15

Being aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority dated 2^nd December 2009, NTC Limited filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority which Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 25^th August 2011 as the amount due towards the gratuity was not deposited and the Appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation.

¶16

The Respondent had made an Application to the Appellate Authority for issuing a recovery certificate in favour of the Respondent. However since the Controlling Authority failed to issue the recovery certificate, the Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 1480 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court seeking appropriate writ directions. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by an order of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 20^th September 2011. By the said order, the decision of the Appellate Authority dated 25^th August 2011, dismissing the Appeal filed by the NTC Limited was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the Appeal afresh, provided that NTC Limited deposited the entire amount as adjudicated by the Controlling Authority within a period of four weeks. It was further provided that if any such Application is made by NTC Limited, 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.

¶17

The said Appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 18^th November 2011. The Appellate Authority has in its order inter alia held as follows :-

¶18

“ ......... the present appeal which is filed after approximately 627 days is required not to be admitted and I, accordingly,

¶19

3 wp-l-96-12

¶20

don’t admit the present appeal for want of jurisdiction.”

¶21

NTC Limited has by the present Writ Petition filed on 18^th January 2012 challenged both the orders i.e. the order of the Controlling Authority dated 2^nd December 2009 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 18^th November 2011. I have heard the Learned Advocates appearing for the parties. NTC Limited had an opportunity to Appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority dated 2^nd December 2009 before the Appellate Authority. However, NTC Limited failed and neglected to file an Appeal within the prescribed time and sought to challenge the order of the Controlling Authority after about 21 months. The Appellate Authority admittedly having no powers to condone the delay, correctly dismissed the Appeal. The Petitioner now after more than two years, has challenged the order of the Controlling Authority before this Court and is seeking interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be allowed. In view thereof, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶22

[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]

National Textile Corporation Ltd. ( Western Region). v. Ramchandra Ballaya Samal.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

National Textile Corporation Ltd. ( Western Region). v. Ramchandra Ballaya Samal.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uti Bank Ltd. Vs Padmaben S.Shah and Anr.

Uti Bank Ltd. Vs Bharat Shevantilal Shah and Anr.

Bp India Services Private Limited Vs the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Ministry of Labour and Employment and 2 Ors.

Rizvanullah J. Choudhary and Ors. Vs Hafizullah Aahsanuullah and Touch Wood Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.

Mathurdas Karsandas Natha and Ors. Vs Bai Motibai Kasara Baug Borivli Trust and Ors.

Klen and Marshalls Mfrs and Exporters Ltd. Vs Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd.