Dismissed

Rama Chandiramani v. Sivagami

Madras HC2 Nov 2021WP/13104/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed the withdrawn writ petition challenging an order granting gratuity. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal with the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, and limitation for such appeal excluded the period spent pursuing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appeal; limitation for appeal recalculated.

Rama Chandiramani Vs Sivagami — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶5

W.P. No. 13104 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013

Rama Chandiramani

... Petitioner

-vs-

Sivagami

¶10

Viswakarma Property and Developers Limited, No.18, 2nd Main Road, Kasturi Bai Road, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020.

¶11

The Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Payment of Gratuity, D.M.S. Compound, Chennai - 600 006.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in P.G. Case No. 168 of 2008 on the file of the Third Respondent and quash the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour dated 02.01.2013 in P.G. Case No. 168 of 2008.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Sridhar

¶15

For Respondents : No Appearance (for R1 and R2)

¶16

Mr. C.Harsha Raj, Government Counsel (for R3)

¶17

(through video conference)

¶18

Heard Mr. Mr. S.Sridhar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. C.Harsha Raj, Learned Government Counsel appearing for the Third Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

The Third Respondent by an order dated 02.01.2013 in P.G. No. 168 of 2008 had granted the claim for gratuity under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) made by the First Respondent against the Petitioner and the Second Respondent. The Petitioner was entitled to prefer appeal against that order within a period of 60 days from the date of its receipt under Section 7(7) of the Act before the Appellate Authority, who has been empowered to condone delay in filing such appeal for an extended period of 60 days, if sufficient cause for not preferring appeal within that period is made out. However, the Petitioner did not prefer any such appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition on 26.04.2013 challenging the order passed by the Third Respondent.

¶21

When it is pointed out that it is not possible to entertain this Writ Petition in the absence of any acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having availed the aforesaid alternative remedy provided under the statute, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file appeal before the Appellate Authority. She has filed a memo dated 01.11.2021 to that effect through e-mail, which is placed on record.

¶22

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting such liberty. It is made clear that for the purpose of reckoning limitation for availing aforesaid remedy, the period from the date of filing of the Writ Petition, viz., 26.04.2013, till the date on which certified copy of this order is made ready by the Registry, shall be excluded. No costs.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

dm/vjt

¶27

¶28

The Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Payment of Gratuity, D.M.S. Compound, Chennai - 600 006.

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

The Section Officer, E.R.Section, High Court, Madras-104.

¶31

( With direction to return the original impugned order )

¶32

The Assistant Registrar, Writ Section, High Court, Madras-104.

¶33

Copy to:

¶34

Rama Chandiramani Wife of C.Chandiramani 61 Poes Garden, Chennai - 600 086.

¶35

W.P. No. 13104 of 2013

¶36

SMI(CO) SU(17/11/2021)

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Rama Chandiramani v. Sivagami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Chandiramani v. Sivagami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs the Presiding Officer

The Management Vs the Presiding Officer

M/S.Tiruttani Cooperative Vs the Deputy Chief Inspector of

The Managing Director Vs M.Balaraman

The Management Vs T.Kethu

S.Muthusamy Vs the Joint Commissioner of