Allowed

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company v. Shri Pawan Kumar

Chhattisgarh HC19 Apr 2023WPL/10/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an Appellate Authority order directing the payment of gratuity due to procedural illegality. The court held that both the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority violated Rule 11 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 by deciding the disputes without giving the employer an opportunity to approach the authority, lead evidence, and file a written statement. T

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed. Orders set aside. Matter remanded to Controlling Authority for fresh proceedings with notice and opportunity to file pleadings and evidence.

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company Vs Shri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 10

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPL No. 08 of 2023

¶5

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company, a Partnership Firm, Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Partnership Act, 1932, Having Its Registered Office At Gola Bidi Works, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner Namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mirani, S/o Late Mr. Manilal Mirani No. 11/157, Sadar Bazar, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri Dhanu Lal Dewangan S/o Late Shri Kirtan Lal Village - Naya Nakapara, Chharama, Uttar Bastar, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

WPL No. 09 of 2023

¶13

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company, a Partnership Firm Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Partnership Act, 1932, Having Its Registered Office At Gola Bidi Works, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. Through Its Partner Namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mirani, S/o Late Mr. Manilal Mirani, Aged About 69 Years, R/o House No. 11/157, Sadar Bazar, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶14

---- Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

Smt. Godawari Bai W/o Shri Kheman R/o Village And Post Acchota, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶17

The Appellat Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

---- Respondent

¶20

WPL No. 10 of 2023

¶21

¶22

Page 2 of 10

¶23

R/o House No. 11/157, Sadar Bazar,, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶24

---- Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

Shri Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Birbal, Village And Post - Acchota, Thana - Arjuni, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶27

The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-I, Avanti Vihar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶28

The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-I, Avanti Vihar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶29

---- Respondents

¶30

WPL No. 14 of 2023

¶31

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company, a Partnership Firm, Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Partnership Act, 1932, Having Its District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner Namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mirani, S/o Late Mr. Manilal Mirani, Aged 69 Years, R/o House No. 11/157, Sadar Bazar, DistrictDhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶32

---- Petitioner

¶33

Versus

¶34

Smt. Bimla Bai W/o Shri Pawan Kumar Village And PostAcchota, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgahrh.

¶35

The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act. 1972 And Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶36

The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶37

---- Respondents

¶38

WPL No. 15 of 2023

¶39

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company, a Partnership Firm Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Partnership Act, 1932, Having Its Registered Office At Gola Bidi Works, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner Namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mirani, S/o Late Mr. Manilal Mirani, Aged About 69 Years, R/o House No. 11/157, Sadar Bazar, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶40

---- Petitioner

¶41

Versus

¶42

Shri Munna Lal Sahu S/o Late Shankar Lal Sahu, Ramsagar Para, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶43

The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶44

The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur,

¶45

Page 3 of 10

¶46

D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶47

---- Respondents

¶48

WPL No. 16 of 2023

¶49

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company, a Partnership Firm, Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Partnership Act, 1932, Having Its Registered Office At Gola Bidi Works, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner Namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mirani, S/o Late Mr. Manilal Mirani, Aged About 69 Years, R/o House No. 11/157, Sadar Bazar, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶50

---- Petitioners

¶51

Versus

¶52

Smt. Durpati Bai W/o Shri Madan Lal Dewangan Village And Post - Acchota, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶53

The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Chief Labout Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector - 1, Avanti Vihar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶54

The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 And The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector -1, Avanti Vihar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶55

---- Respondent

¶56

WPL No. 17 of 2023

¶57

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company, A Partnership Firm, Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Partnership Act, 1932, Having Its Registered Office At Gola Bidi Works, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner Namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mirani, S/o Late Mr. Manilal Mirani, Aged About 69 Years, R/o House No. 11/157, Sadar Bazar, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶58

---- Petitioner

¶59

Versus

¶60

Smt. Ganeshiya Bai W/o Shri Keju Ram, Village - Galav, Post - Acchota, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶61

The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶62

The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector -1, Avanti Vihar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶63

---- Respondents

¶64

WPL No. 18 of 2023

¶65

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company, a Partnership Firm Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Partnership Act, 1932, Having Its Registered Office At Gola Bidi Works, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner Namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mirani, S/o Late Mr. Manilal Mirani, Aged About 69 Years, R/o House No. 11/157, Sadar Bazar, District Dhamtari,

Page 4 of 10

Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

¶70

1. Smt. Ram Kali Bai W/o Shri Deep Chand Dewangan, Village - Moyna, Post- Acchota, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶71

The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act,1972 And Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh

¶72

The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶73

---- Respondents

¶74

WPL No. 19 of 2023

¶75

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company, a Partnership Firm, Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Partnership Act, 1932, Having Its Registered Office At Gola Bidi Works, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner Namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mirani, S/o Late Mr. Manilal Mirani, Aged About 69 Years, R/o House No. 11/157, Sadar Bazar, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶76

---- Petitioner

¶77

Versus

¶78

Smt. Phool Devki Bai W/o Shri Leelaram Dewangan R/o 308, Society Para, Village - Acchota, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶79

The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶80

The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶81

---- Respondents

¶82

WPL No. 20 of 2023

¶83

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company, a Partnership Firm, Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Partnership Act, 1932, Having Its Registered Office At Gola Bidi Works, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner Namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mirani, S/o Late Mr. Manilal Mirani, Aged About 69 Yeras, R/o House No. 11/157, Sadar Bazar, District Bhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶84

---- Petitioner

¶85

Versus

¶86

Shri Kushal Ram Dewangan S/o Late Prithvi Lal Dewangan, Sorid Nagar, Dhamtari Post Thana And District Dhamtari,chhattisgarh.

¶87

The Appellate Authority Under The Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 And Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society,sector-, Avanti Vihar, District Raipur

¶88

Page 5 of 10

¶89

Chhattisgarh.

¶90

The Controlling Authority Under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 And The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Secotor-1, Avanti Vihar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶91

---- Respondents

¶92

For Petitioner	: Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shreyansh Agrawal, Advocate.
For Res. No. 1	: Mr. Prakash Tiwari & Mr. Shayon Kar, Advocate.

¶93

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶94

Order on Board

¶95

19.04.2023

¶96

As common question of law and facts are involved in the bunch of all the aforesaid Writ Petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. For sake of convenience WPL No. 08 of 2023 is being treated as lead case .

¶97

The brief facts reflected from records are that respondent No. 1 has filed an application on 02.09.2021 under Section 10 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short “the Act, 1972”) before the Controlling Authority -cum- Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur for issuance of direction to the petitioner for payment of gratuity mainly contending that respondent No. 1 was an employee of the petitioner, who was superannuated from services of the petitioner in the year 2006. He has claimed for gratuity, which has not been paid to him even after lapse of 15 years, as such, he has filed the application. Respondent No. 1 has also filed an application for condonation of delay on the count that he is not aware of the law. The application was registered as case No. RP-48(96)/2021-ALC (Shri Dhanuram Dewangan Vs. Manilal Dayalji & company).

¶98

The petitioner has filed reply to the application for condonation of delay, which was considered and allowed by the Controlling Authority by rejecting the application filed by respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 16.03.2022. Against that order, respondent

¶99

Page 6 of 10

¶100

No. 1/employee has preferred an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act, 1972 challenging legality and propriety of the order passed by respondent No. 3 mainly contending that the Appellate Authority without considering the aims and objects of the Act, 1972, which is a welfare legislation, has rejected the application on the count of delay and laches whereas it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to pay the gratuity. Thus, the order dated 02.09.2021 has been passed by the Controlling Authority without considering the law and facts. The Controlling Authority has mechanically rejected the application, which is incorrect finding of facts and application of law and would pray for setting aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority.

¶101

Learned Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 09.12.2002 has allowed the said appeal and accessed the dues of gratuity directing the petitioner to pay the amount to respondent No. 1 in all the cases. The details of amount and date of retirement as mentioned in the application for all the respondent No. 1 before this Court and their writ petition numbers, are given in table form as under:-

¶102

S. N.	Case No.	Appointment year	Retirement year	A a	mount warded
1.	WPL No. 8/2023	1986	2006	Rs. with	34,615/- S.I.
2.	WPL No. 9/2023	1985	2010	Rs. with	43,269/- S.I.
3.	WPL No. 10/2023	1977	1996	Rs. with	54,808/- S.I.
4.	WPL No. 14/2023	1985	2010	Rs. with	43,269/- S.I.
5.	WPL No. 15/2023	1988	2016	Rs. with	48,462/- S.I.
6.	WPL No. 16/2023	1985	2010	Rs. with	43,269/- S.I.
7.	WPL No. 17/2023	1985	2010	Rs. with	43,269/- S.I.
8.	WPL No. 18/2023	1985	2010	Rs. with	43,269/- S.I.
9.	WPL No. 19/2023	1991	2010	Rs.	38,077/-

¶103

Page 7 of 10

¶104

with S.I. 10 WPL No. 20/2023 1977 2012 Rs.1,00,962/with S.I.

¶105

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that order passed by the Appellate Authority is bad in law and there is a dispute regarding employee and employer relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. He would further submit that learned Appellate Authority without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to file written statement, to lead evidence in support of their stand, without giving any opportunity for production of records to object the claim of respondent No. 1, mechanically decided the appeal and directed them to pay gratuity to respondent No. 1. The procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority is in violation of Rule 11 of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 (for short “the Rules, 1972”). He would further submit that the application filed before the Controlling Authority itself is not maintainable as per definition of 2(a) of the Act, 1972. The appropriate Government for the petitioner is State Government, not the Central Government and he would pray for setting aside the impugned order. In support of his contention, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jeewanlal (1929) Limited, Calcutta Vs. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act , reported in (1984) 4 SCC 356 .

¶106

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/employee supports the order passed by the Appellate Authority and would submit that no disputed facts are involved. He would further submit that for petitioner’s establishment, the appropriate Government is Central Government and the application has rightly been filed before the Controlling Authority which has committed illegality in rejecting the same. He would submit that the mistake committed by the Controlling Authority has rightly been rectified by the Appellate Authority, as such, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is legal and justified and would pray for dismissal for the writ petitions.

¶107

Page 8 of 10

¶108

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents place on record with utmost satisfaction.

¶109

From the records, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has not filed written statement to rebut the allegations made in the application filed by respondent No. 1. It is also reflected from the record that no evidence was led by the petitioner or respondent No. 1 in their respective claim. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 02.09.2021 has rejected the claim as barred by limitation and against that respondent No. 1 has preferred an appeal, wherein, the Appellate Authority without any evidence, material on record has allowed the appeal and directed for payment of gratuity. This is illegality committed by the Appellate Authority as the Appellate Authority once held that since gratuity was not released in favour of respondent No. 1 and legislature had not advisedly specified any particular period of limitation for moving the controlling authority for grant of gratuity as such the application cannot be rejected on the count of delay in filing of the application. Thus, the order passed by the Controlling Authority, is erroneous, therefore, the matter should be remanded back to the Controlling Authority for deciding the case in accordance with the law and in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules, 1972, which provides procedure for dealing with application for direction. Rule 11 of the Rules, 1972 reads as under:-

¶110

“ 11. Procedure for dealing with application for direction .— (1) On receipt of an application under rule 10 the controlling authority shall, by issuing a notice in Form ‘O’, call upon the applicant as well as the employer to appear before him on a specified date, time and place, either by himself or through his authorised representative together with all relevant documents and witnesses, if any. (2) Any person desiring to act on behalf of an employer or employee, nominee or legal heir, as the cases may be, shall present to the controlling authority a letter of authority from the employer or the person concerned, as the case may be, on whose behalf he seeks to act together with a written statement explaining his interest in the matter and praying for permission so to act. The

¶111

Page 9 of 10

¶112

controlling authority shall record thereon an order either according his approval or specifying, in the case of refusal to grant the permission prayed for, the reasons for the refusal. (3) A party appearing by an authorised representative shall be bound by the acts of the representative. (4) After completion of hearing on the date fixed under sub-rule (1), or after such further evidence, examination of documents, witnesses, hearing and enquiry, as may be deemed necessary, the controlling authority shall record his finding as to whether any amount is payable to the applicant under the Act. A copy of the finding shall be given to each of the parties. (5) If the employer concerned fails to appear on the specified date of hearing after due service of notice without sufficient cause, the controlling authority may proceed to hear and determine the application exparte. If the applicant fails to appear on the specified date of hearing without sufficient cause, the controlling authority may dismiss the application: Provided that an order under this sub-rule may, on good cause being shown within thirty days of the said order, be reviewed and the application re-heard after giving not less than fourteen days’ notice to the opposite party of the date fixed for rehearing of the application.”

¶113

Thus, from the records, it is quite vivid that the Controlling Authority has not passed the order without giving opportunity of filing written statement, examining the witnesses, producing the documents, which is clear violation of rules. The Appellate Authority has further committed illegality in not giving any opportunity to the petitioner to contest the case, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure P/1) as well as order passed by the Controlling Authority (Annexure P/2) are bad-in-law and deserve to be set aside and accordingly they are set aside.

¶114

The matter is remitted back to the Controlling Authority to decide the same afresh. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case. The Controlling Authority shall decide the case in accordance with law on its own merit giving opportunity to the parties to file pleadings, evidence and documents in their respective supports. It is directed that the

¶115

Page 10 of 10

¶116

Controlling Authority shall make an endeavor to complete the proceeding within an outer limit of four months from the date of first appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to appear before Controlling Authority on 15^th May, 2023 and for appearance, no notice is required to be issued. The petitioner is directed to file written statement within 15 days from their first appearance before the Controlling Authority.

¶117

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions are allowed.

¶118

The interim order passed earlier by this Court stands vacated.

¶119

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶120

Arun

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company v. Shri Pawan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company v. Shri Pawan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anwar Haque Vs Sheikh Rasool and Another

Mrigendra Singh Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited

Lokeshwar Thethwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company Vs Smt. Godawari Bai

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company, Vs Smt. Ganeshiya Bai

Krantilal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.