Allowed

M/s. Chaitanya Bharati Institute of Technology, v. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Controlling Authori

Telangana HC28 Dec 2011WP/1553/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed management's writ petition setting aside an order condoning delay in a gratuity petition. The Court held that no hearing was afforded to the management before condoning the delay, violating Article 14 and natural justice. The matter was remitted for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside delay condonation was set aside. Writ petition allowed; matter remitted to Labor Authority for fresh disposal of I.A. within two months.

M/s. Chaitanya Bharati Institute of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 1553 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the order dated 29.12.2009 in I.A.No.4 in PG.No.3 of 2009 on the file of the 1^st respondent, as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and rules made thereunder, and consequently set aside the same.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the vacate petitioner/2^nd respondent. No representation for the writ petitioner.

¶6

The 2^nd respondent is the workman and the writ petitioner is the management. Aggrieved by the inaction of the management in payment of gratuity, the workman filed P.G.No.3 of 2009 on the file of the 1^st respondent and since there was delay of 4 years, 330 days, he filed I.A.No.4 of 2009 seeking condonation of delay. By the impugned order dated 29.12.2009, the delay was condoned. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the management and this court while admitting the writ petition granted interim stay and seeking vacation of the same, the workman filed vacate petition.

¶7

The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that before condoning the delay, no opportunity was given to represent the case, and hence, sought to set aside the

¶8

impugned order. The contention of the workman is that because of the stay granted by this court, his gratuity payment are withheld.

¶9

Having regard to the contention of the petitioner that no opportunity was given while disposing of the I.A. filed for condoning the delay, I am of the considered view that the impugned order needs to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

¶10

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the 1^st respondent for disposal of I.A., afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

_________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶12

28^th December, 2011 KSM

M/s. Chaitanya Bharati Institute of Technology, v. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Controlling Authori

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Chaitanya Bharati Institute of Technology, v. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Controlling Authori

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

B.Mallapa Vs Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan

Smt. N. Radha Kumari, Vs Regional Manager

Sri Mallesha Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

R.S. Narayana Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

M. Jayakumar, Vs The Managing Director

Kande Jayamma Vs Chinni Lalithama