Dismissed

Boat Building Center v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour

Madras HC22 Feb 2024WP(MD)/364/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employer challenged an order allowing its former employee to produce additional documents belatedly in support of a gratuity claim. Holding the Payment of Gratuity Act beneficial and free of procedural bars on producing documents for the first time, the High Court dismissed the writ petition while directing that objections and cross-examination opportunities be afforded.

What the court decided

AI extract

Boat Building Center Vs Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.364 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.02.2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.364 of 2021

¶5

Boat Building Center Kottar Social Service union division Muttam & P.O Kanniyakumari District rep by its Executive Director

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.Assistant Commissioner of Labour, The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Tirunelveli 2.T.Subramanian ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in I.A.No.466 of 2016 in P.G. No.63 of 2018 dated 30.1.2020 and quash the same as illegal.

¶10

_________Page 1 of 5

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

W.P.(MD) No.364 of 2021

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatesan for R2 No appearance for R1

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to the order dated 30.01.2020, passed in I.A.No.466 of 2016 in P.G.No.63 of 2018 passed by the 1^st respondent herein permitting the 2^nd respondent to bring on record certain additional documents in support of his claim for payment of gratuity. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though there was a series of litigation between the parties, the 2^nd respondent never placed these documents in any of the other proceedings so far, but for the first time, he is trying to introduce the documents in the proceedings pending before the 1^st respondent and also further contented that the said documents are sought to be brought on record belatedly. Therefore, the impugned order permitting filing of such documents at the belated stage cannot be sustained.

¶16

_________Page 2 of 5

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.364 of 2021

¶19

This Court having thoroughly considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to accept such contentions as the very payment of Gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for the welfare of the employees the technicalities, and the hyper technicalities should not come in the way of considering the claims for payment of the benefits that are due and payable to the employees/workmen under the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. There is no bar to produce the documents for the first time, even though the said documents were not produced in the previous proceedings between the parties, nor there is any time limit that is prescribed for producing the documents in support of the claim of the 2^nd respondent.

¶20

In view of the same, this court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned order and hence this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, considering the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to afford an opportunity to the petitioner herein to place objections about the admission of documents and opportunity of cross examination of the 2^nd respondent during the course of recording of _________Page 3 of 5

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.364 of 2021

¶23

the evidence, the court is of the view that the petitioner is legally entitled to take all the pleas that are available to him under law, including right to cross examine, in the event of the 2^nd respondent, examining himself or any other witnesses on his behalf. This court hope and trust that the 1^st respondent while dealing with the matter on merits would afford all such opportunities strictly in accordance with law to the petitioner.

¶24

In view of the above said observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶25

22.02.2024

¶26

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes kpr To

¶27

The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Tirunelveli

¶28

_________Page 4 of 5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.364 of 2021

¶31

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶32

kpr

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.364 of 2021

¶34

22.02.2024

¶35

_________Page 5 of 5

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Boat Building Center v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Boat Building Center v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour

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

Arumugaperumal Vs Velmanickam (Died)

Sakthimurugan Vs Seethalakshmi

J.Subramanian @ Kjs.Manian, Vs Suganthi

The General Manager/Administration Vs Rengasamy.P

The General Manager/Administration Vs Kamalaveni. C

Krishnasamy.R Vs the District Collector