The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an appeal regarding gratuity payment. It held that the statutory bar on condoning delay beyond 60 days precludes the Court from extending the limitation period under Article 226.
Writ petition dismissed; prayer to direct respondent to entertain appeal denied.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 23.12.2016
Delivered on: 03.1.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE V. PARTHIBAN
W.P.No.38898 of 2002
The Management of Coimbatore,
District Central Co-operation Bank Ltd., State Bank of India Road,
Coimbatore-641 018 ... Petitioner
Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore-641 018.
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent herein to take on his file the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 25.6.2001 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour in G.A.No.217 of 2000 and consequently conduct enquiry and then to pass orders on merits.
For petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan For respondent 1: Mr.M.Dig Vijaya Pandian, AGP For respondent 2: Mr. C. Prakasam
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the first respondent dated 29.12.2001 rejecting the appeal filed by the writ petitioner Management on the ground of delay.
of filing an application in G.A.No.217 of 2000 for payment of gratuity. The said Gratuity Application was allowed by the Authority constituted under the Gratuity Act on 25.6.2001. Against the order of the original authority, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner Management on 24.12.2001 with the delay of 117 days. By the impugned order dated 29.12.2001, the said appeal came to be rejected on the ground that as per the provisions of the Gratuity Act, the Authority vested with the discretion only to condone the delay of 60 days after the expiry of the prescribed period. In such view of the matter, the appeal was not entertained since there was a statutory bar in entertaining the appeal beyond the above said period. As against the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
suk
To
The Joint Commissioner of Labour/ Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore-641 018.
+1cc to Mr.Saravanan, Advocate, S.R.No.714 +1cc to Mr.Prakasam, Advocate, S.R.No.725 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.760
GJ(CO) RS(19/01/2017)
Pre delivery order in W.P.No.38898 of 2002
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can extend the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under the Gratuity Act despite s. 11(2) discretion.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Management of Coimbatore District Central Co-operation Bank Ltd.
The Joint Commissioner of Labour
M. Murugesan
V. Parthiban
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
