Dismissed

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through Chief Manager v. Shri Bihari Singh S/O Shri Shaitan Singh

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2019CW/17833/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court held that the appeal was bar by limitation as the Act prescribes specific time frames allowing no condonation. It also found the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim that the employee did not complete requisite service periods.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the orders of the Presiding Officer and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was dismissed.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 17833/2018

¶3

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Chief Manager, Matasya Nagar Depot, Alwar, Rajasthan

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Bihari Singh S/o Shri Shaitan Singh, Behind Stc School, Bangar Ka Bas, Near Police Line, Alwar, Rajasthan

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.L. Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶9

Judgment

¶10

10/01/2019

¶11

The petitioner by way of this writ petition have assailed the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer of Controller Officer, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Alwar. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972 has also been rejected vide order dated 15.2.2018 which is also been assailed by submitted by the petitioner.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 2(c) of the Act of 1972, the workman was not entitled to receive gratuity for the period during which he has not completed 240 days and as the petitioner had pointed out before the Authority that the respondent-workman had not completed 240 days in the year 1980, 1991 & 2000. The gratuity for these three years could not have been added.

¶13

(2 of 3)

¶14

[CW-17833/2018]

¶15

Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is perverse and has to be set-aside.

¶16

Learned counsel further submits that appeal has been rejected only on the ground of limitation and Appellate Court ought to have also gone into the technicality and should have decided the appeal on merits.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has considered the argument raised by the petitioner relating to the assertions that the workman has not completed 240 days in the year 1980, 1991 & 2000 but has found that no documentary evidence or oral evidence was brought before it to support such assertions and in absence of there being any such documentary evidence to prove that the workman had not completed 240 days, finding that the owners have not been discharged by the petitioner and Authority has rejected the petitioner’s submissions and granted gratuity for the entire period including the aforesaid years.

¶18

Even before this court, learned counsel for the petitioner has not shown any document supporting his submission that the workman had not completed 240 days in the year 1980, 1991 & 2000. It is noticed that the respondent-workman has worked from 19.09.1979 upto 31.05.2011 i.e. for a period of thirty one years, three months & twenty eight days with the petitioner, thus, he was entitled to receive full gratuity and in the opinion of this Court no illegality has been committed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶19

(3 of 3)

¶20

[CW-17833/2018]

¶21

So far as, the Appellate Authority order dated 15.02.2018 is concerned, this court finds that the provisions of Section 7(7) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, laid down a fixed period during which an appeal can be preferred. The appeal can further be preferred by extension of further period of 60 days, as per the proviso to Rule 7(7). Thus 120 days has been provided under Section 7(7) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and no further period is provided. Thus, the provisions of Limitation Act for condoning the delay thereafter would not apply to the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and as per Section 7(7) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the appeal has to be necessarily filed within the period as prescribed therein. Neither the Appellate Authority nor any Court would be in a position to extend the said period of appeal, as there is no provision under the Act for condoning the delay. In view thereof, the order of the Appellate Authority, cannot be said to be in any manner unjustified or illegal.

¶22

Accordingly, both the orders passed by the Authority Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as Appellate Authority order do not call for any interference.

¶23

The writ petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶25

Amit & CK /37

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through Chief Manager v. Shri Bihari Singh S/O Shri Shaitan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through Chief Manager v. Shri Bihari Singh S/O Shri Shaitan Singh

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

Lakhana Ram Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Niwas Ram Meena Vs Raj Finace Corp and Ors.

Nagar Palika Mandal and Anr. Vs President Asangathith Majdoor Santh Andanr

M/S.Bhagwan Das,Gopal Prasad Vs M/S.Ashoka Oil Products

Smt. Nisha Rawal Wife of Shri Praveen Hooja Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajit Chand Srimal S/O Shri R.C. Srimal Vs Official Liquidator of M/S Ace Laboratories Limited (in Liquidation)