Dismissed¶40

The Management v. The Authority Under

Madras HC4 Apr 2025REV.APLW/255/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022; Madras High Court; review petition Order 47 Rule 1 Section 114 CPC; W.P.No.34852 of 2016 dismissed 15.06.2022; Payment of Gratuity Act authority P.G.No.148 of 2014; P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 delay condonation 72 days limitation bar; Article 226 writ where statutory remedy barred by limitation; Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Kakinada v Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd CA 2413/2020 06.05.2020 applied; Tiruvateeswarar Hindu Janopakara Nidhi Ltd management; S.Ravichandran; review dismissed no costs; R.N.Manjula.

What did the court decide?

So far as the order in P.G.No.148 of 2014 is concerned, the petitioner can invoke the appeal remedy provided under the statute; the distinction attempted between the appreciation of the P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 order and the P.G.No.148 of 2014 order does not assist the petitioner.

The Management Vs The Authority Under — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 15.06.2022 in W.P.No.34852 of 2016 erred by addressing only P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 dated 30.06.2016 while leaving aside the order passed in P.G.No.148 of 2014 dated 04.02.2015, so as to warrant review. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

¶32

Ratio / Principle

What the petitioner cannot directly address before the appellate authority by preferring an appeal within the statutory limit cannot be addressed before the High Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

Key takeaways

The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited relied upon in the order dated 15.06.2022 was applied to the matter in issue comprehensively; therefore there can be no deviation between the order passed in P.G.No.148 of 2014 and the order passed in P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 now claimed by the petitioner.ratio¶39
There are no grounds to entertain this Review Petition.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Madras (R.N.Manjula, J.), Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022 in W.P.No.34852 of 2016, decided 04.04.2025 — Dismissal of review petition seeking review of the dismissal (15.06.2022) of a writ petition that had sought quashing of Payment of Gratuity proceedings P.G.No.148 of 2014 dated 04.02.2015 and the consequential P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 dated 30.06.2016 (application to set aside the exparte order with 72-day delay condonation, refused as barred by limitation). Holding: what cannot be pursued before the appellate authority by an appeal filed within the statutory limit cannot be pursued before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution; the order dated 15.06.2022 had relied on and applied the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Order dated 06.05.2020 in Civil Appeal No.2413 of 2020), so there can be no deviation between the treatment of P.G.No.148 of 2014 and P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015. Filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 C.P.C.; review dismissed, no costs.

¶1

Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022 in W.P.No.34852 of 2016

¶7

The Management, The Tiruvateeswarar Hindu Janopakara Nidhi Ltd., Rep by Administrative Director, Old No.36, New No.50, Kuppumuthu Street, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act / The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, O/o. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour - 1, Chennai - 6.

¶11

2.S.Ravichandran

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 C.P.C., to review the order passed in W.P.No.34852 of 2016 dated 15.06.2022 on the file of this Court.

¶14

Page No.1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy For Respondents : Mr.V.Umakanth, GA for R1 Mr.S.Sureshkumar for R2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Review Petition has been filed to review the order passed in W.P.No.34852 of 2016 dated 15.06.2022.

¶20

2. Heard Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Umakanth, learned Government Advocate for R1 and Mr.S.Sureshkumar, learned counsel for R2 and perused the materials available on record.

¶21

3. The Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the order of the first respondent in P.G.No.148 of 2014 dated 04.02.2015 and consequential order in P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 dated 30.06.2016 and quash the same. The said Writ Petition has been dismissed on 15.06.2022.

¶22

Page No.2 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022

¶25

4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the Court has addressed only the issue raised in P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 dated 30.06.2016 by leaving aside the order passed in P.G.No.148 of 2014 dated 04.02.2015. P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the exparte order passed in P.G.No.148 of 2014 along with a petition to condone the delay of 72 days. The said P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 has been refused to be entertained as it has been barred by limitation.

¶26

5. This Court has observed in its order dated 15.06.2022 that the High Court in its exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not entertain the Writ Petition in respect of the matters for which the statutory remedy is available, but has barred by limitation. As such, it is not possible to extend any equitable relief contrary to law by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Order dated 06.05.2020 in Civil

¶27

Page No.3 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022

¶30

dismissed.

¶31

Appeal No.2413 of 2020) . On that ground, the Writ Petition has been dismissed.

¶32

6. The learned counsel for the review petitioner tried to make a distinction between the appreciation of order passed in P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 and order passed in P.G.No.148 of 2014. So far as the order passed in P.G.No.148 of 2014 is concerned, the petitioner can invoke the appeal remedy as provided under the statute. As there was a delay in filing an application to set aside the exparte order, he had filed an interim application to condone the delay and that was refused to be accepted.

¶33

7. When this Court has taken a stand not to interfere with the application filed with a petition to condone the delay, it goes without saying that the petitioner cannot address the order passed in P.G.No.148 of 2014. In other words, what the petitioner cannot directly address before the appellate authority by way of preferring an appeal within the statutory limit cannot be addressed before the High Court by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶34

Page No.4 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022

¶37

India. The order passed by this Court on 15.06.2022 by relying on the

¶38

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Assistant

¶39

Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Order dated 06.05.2020 in Civil Appeal No.2413 of 2020) is applied to the matter in issue in a comprehensive manner and hence, there cannot be any deviation between the order passed in P.G.No.148 of 2014 and the order passed in P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 now claimed by the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain this Review Petition.

¶40

8. In the result, this Review Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶41

Index : Yes / No 04.04.2025 Speaking / Non-speaking Neutral Citation : Yes / No gsk To The Authority under Payments of Gratuity Act / The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, O/o. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour - 1, Chennai - 6.

¶42

Page No.5 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022

¶45

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶46

gsk

¶47

Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022 in W.P.No.34852 of 2016