M/S Mandev Educational Trust Vs the Labour Officer

M/S. MANDEV EDUCATIONAL TRUST, 'SHREE RAM' NEAR BEJAI CHURCH, BEJAI, MANGALORE-575004. A REGISTERED TRUST FORMED UNDER TRUST ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. PUSHPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE LABOUR OFFICER, CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DAKSHINA KANNADA SUB DIVISION -1 MANGALORE-575005.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT MANGALORE DIVISION, PRAKRUTHI COMPLEX, OPPOISTE BHARATH BEEDI WORKS, KADRI ROAD, MANGALORE-575005.

¶17

MRS. JAYALAKSHMI, C/O. MAHESH, KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGE CORP. LTD., LIQUOR DEPOT, MAROLI,

¶18

2 -

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:37064 WP No. 17672 of 2021

¶21

CNR: KAHC010347502021

¶22

KULSHEKAR POST, MANGALURU-575005.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA , AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. ABHISHEK MARLA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Smt.Pushpa, counsel on behalf of Sri.Chandrashekar M., for the petitioner appeared through video conferencing, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.Abhishek Marla, counsel for respondent No.3 appeared in person.

¶29

The order of the appellate authority is called into question in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.

¶30

Counsel for the respondent urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶31

3 -

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:37064 WP No. 17672 of 2021

¶34

CNR: KAHC010347502021

¶35

Counsel for respondent No.3 fairly submits that the appellate authority has failed to comply with the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu 3/2020.

¶36

The fair submission made on behalf of respondent No.3 is placed on record.

¶37

It is noted that the Controlling Authority on 26.11.2020 passed the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority issued an endorsement on 24.08.2021 stating that the appeal is not filed in time. Hence, it declined to condone the delay. This is untenable in law. It is noted that amidst Covid-19 pandemic, the Apex Court had suo motu passed the order in 3/2020. Hence, the Appellate Authority ought to have concluded that there is no delay.

¶38

Taking note of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no question of delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the endorsement dated 24.08.2021 vide Annexure A is quashed. The appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal in accordance with the law.

¶39