Dismissed¶35

The Management, v. Appellate Authority Under

Madras HC19 Mar 2025WP(MD)/4581/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.), decision dated 19.03.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.4581 of 2019 — Article 226 certiorari against Payment of Gratuity Act appellate order (P.G.A.S.No.132 of 2017) confirming award of Rs. 1,63,558/- (P.G.No.247 of 2015) to respondent No.3 (M.Ashok) — abatement of writ petition on death of sole contesting respondent on 11.02.2023 — failure to bring legal representatives on record despite final opportunity/docket order dated 26.02.2025 — writ petition dismissed as abated; no adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the Writ Petition was dismissed as abated, the connected miscellaneous petition closed, and there was no order as to costs. ¶35

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the Writ Petition was dismissed as abated, the connected miscellaneous petition closed, and there was no order as to costs.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, having abated by operation of law upon the death of respondent No.3 (the sole contesting respondent) and the petitioners' failure to bring his legal representatives on record despite repeated opportunities, is liable to be dismissed as abated.

¶33

Court's answer

On the death of respondent No.3, the only contesting respondent, and the petitioners' failure to bring his legal representative on record despite adjournments and the final opportunity dated 26.02.2025, the writ petition stood abated by operation of law against respondent No.3.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

In view of the abatement, the Court had no other option except to dismiss the writ petition as abated; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed and there is no order as to costs.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Madurai Bench) — Writ Petition (W.P.(MD)No.4581 of 2019) under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the appellate order dated 08.02.2018 in P.G.A.S.No.132 of 2017, which confirmed the Controlling Authority's order dated 27.03.2017 in P.G.No.247 of 2015 under the Payment of Gratuity Act directing payment of Rs. 1,63,558/- to respondent No.3 — respondent No.3, the sole contesting respondent, died on 11.02.2023 — petitioners failed to bring his legal representatives on record despite repeated adjournments and a final opportunity granted by docket order dated 26.02.2025, wherein the Court had already recorded abatement by operation of law — HELD: consequent upon the death of respondent No.3 and the petitioners' failure to substitute his legal representative, the writ petition stood abated by operation of law and was dismissed as abated; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no order as to costs. Merits of the gratuity dispute were not decided.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.4581 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.4581 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)No.3642 of 2019

¶7

1.The Management, Ravi Ice Company, 96-C, Rajaji Road, Old Tharapuram Road, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶8

2.The Management, Sutharsan Soda Company, Opp. to Balaji Mill, Old Tharapuram Road, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act/ Joint Commissioner of Labour, Trichirapalli.

¶12

2.Controlling Authority Under The Payment of Gratuity Act/ Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.4581 of 2019

¶16

3.M.Ashok

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 08.02.2018 made in P.G.A.S.No.132 of 2017 on the file of the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act/Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli, confirming the order dated 27.03.2017 made in P.G.No.247 of 2015 on the file of the controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act/Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul and quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Thiyagarajan

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed aggrieved by an order dated 08.02.2018 passed in P.G.A.S.No.132 of 2017. The said P.G.A.S.No.132 of 2017 was filed against the order passed by the respondent No.2 in P.G.No.247 of 2015 dated 27.03.2017. By virtue of the said order dated 27.03.2017, an amount of Rs.

¶23

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.4581 of 2019

¶26

1,63,558/- was directed to be paid to the respondent No.3 herein. Though an appeal was filed against the said order, the same was rejected by the respondent No.1 appellate authority.

¶27

2 . It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that respondent No.3 is reported dead as early as on 11.02.2023. It was thereafter, the matter was adjourned time and again to enable the petitioners to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased respondent No.3. In spite of the same, the petitioners could not take any such steps. Under those circumstances, this Court by order dated 26.02.2025, afforded final opportunity to the petitioners to take appropriate steps and passed the following docket order:

¶28

“As early as on 11.02.2023, it was brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.3 is no more. In spite of this matter being adjourned again and again, no steps have been taken so far to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.2. Hence, Writ Petition is abated by operation of law. However, considering the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, post on 19.03.2025, finally, for taking steps. If no steps are taken by the

¶29

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.4581 of 2019

¶32

date, this Court is left with no other option except to close the Writ Petition as abated.”

¶33

3. In spite of the same, no steps could be taken by the petitioners to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is the only contesting respondent. Consequent upon the death of respondent No.3 and on the failure of the petitioners to bring on record the legal representative of deceased respondent No.3, this Writ Petition stood abated by operation of law against respondent No.3.

¶34

4. In the light of the above, this Court is left with no other option, except

¶35

to dismiss the Writ Petition as abated. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as abated. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

19.03.2025

¶37

Neutral Citation: Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm

¶38

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.4581 of 2019

¶41

¶42