Gujarat High Court
Mantis Technologies Pvt Ltd Through ... vs Ketan Raval on 24 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1334/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1334 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
MANTIS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD THROUGH PARTH NARESHKUMAR
PATEL
Versus
KETAN RAVAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
SIDDHARTH R KHESKANI(9483) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR. RADHESH Y VYAS(7060) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 24/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2 and 3.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:05:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1334/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined Controlling Authority dated 13.11.2018 whereby, the learned Controlling Authority has allowed the claim made by the respondent employee and directed the present petitioner to pay the amount towards gratuity of Rs.1,00,905/- with 10% interest from 04.09.2017 till actual realisation. The said order was challenged before learned Appellate Authority, however, as the appeal was filed beyond the period of 120 days, learned Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal on the ground of delay.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent was employee of the petitioner company since 25.07.2010 and he was working in the operation department as an Associate. At the time of appointment, the petitioner company has provided a laptop and dongle for the official work and directions for the use was stipulated at the time of his appointment. It was clarified a the time of handing over the laptop and dongle that same would be returned when the respondent would be ceased to be an employee of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 was irregular in his work with regard to the deposit of the amount collected on behalf of the company and Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:05:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1334/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined started taking leave without informing the management from May, 2017 onwards. A warning was issued through oral and through an email with regard to the conduct of irregularity, however, respondent had stopped resuming the duties from June, 2017 onwards. As the assets of the petitioner i.e. laptop and dongle were lying with the respondent, therefore, various communications were sent through email. The respondent was absconded for certain period, therefore, police complaint came to be filed, however, as there was a dispute between the employer and employee, same was not culminated into FIR.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that on 04.09.2017, application under the Payment of Gratuity Act came to be filed before the learned Controlling Authority being Gratuity Application No.504 of 2017 wherein, though notices were issued and received by the Administrative Branch, the petitioner could not remain present due to lack of communication. Resultantly, the application came to be allowed in favour of the respondent and as appeal was filed beyond the period of 120 days, learned Appellate Authority has upheld the order passed by the Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:05:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1334/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined learned Controlling Authority and rejected the appeal on the ground of delay, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Siddharth R Kheskani for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Radhesh Vyas for the respondent.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Kheskani submits that respondent was absconding for a considerable time and though various emails were sent to deposit the amount collected from customers and to hand over the assets of the petitioner, no response was given by the present respondent. Learned advocate Mr. Kheskani submits that the form No. "I" which is filed before the learned Controlling Authority claiming the amount of gratuity wherein, the reasons for relieving was mentioned as termination from 10.06.2017. Learned advocate Mr. Kheskani submits that after 10.06.2017, various communications were sent to the respondent through email which remained unresponded, the false claim made before the learned Controlling Authority which was made in absence of the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Kheskani submits that though ample Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:05:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1334/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined opportunities were provided, however, as due to miscommunication the representative of the present petitioner Company did not remain present, the order impugned be set aside and petitioner is ready to deposit the cost if the matter is remanded back to the learned Controlling Authority.
7. As against the same learned advocate Mr.Vyas appearing for the respondent submits that ample opportunities were given by the learned Controlling Authority and as petitioner remained absent, though he received the communication dated 25.01.2018, informing to remain present before the learned Controlling Authority, learned Controlling Authority was justifying in believing the case of the present petitioner and by passing the order of payment of gratuity. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas submits that the order passed by the learned Controlling Authority dated 26.03.2018 was challenged before the Appellate Authority on 01.11.2018 which is beyond the period of 120 days, therefore, learned Appellate Authority is also justifying in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay as the learned Appellate Authority would not have the Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:05:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1334/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined jurisdiction to entertain the appeal beyond the period of limitation. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas submits that as no justifiable reasons are provided for not remaining present before the learned Controlling Authority, the impugned order deserves to be upheld and the petition is required to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the respective parties, it is undisputed fact that Form No."N" was filled up before the learned Controlling Authority stating that the respondent was an employee of the petitioner company since 2010 and working as an Operation Officer and it is stated that his services were to be put an end to from 10.06.2017. It is also mentioned in the Form "N" that he was getting monthly salary of Rs.25,000/- and therefore, he would be entitled for the amount towards the gratuity of Rs.1,00,905/-.
8.1. On referring the reasons assigned by the learned Controlling Authority, it appears that though the application was differed from time and again, due to absence of the petitioner and though the communication was received by the present petitioner dated Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:05:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1334/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined 25.01.2018, no one has remained present and therefore, learned Controlling Authority has passed an order against the present petitioner. Reasons assigned for non remaining present before the learned Controlling Authority by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the notices and communications were sent to the administrative branch, however, the petitioner was not informed by the concerned Officer who received the communication. Though the said reasons would not be acceptable, however, alongwith the said, if material is produced before this Court showing the conduct of the respondent, this Court would deem it fit to remand back to the learned Controlling Authority in following circumstance:-
a) Assets declaration form which is filled up by the present respondent dated 05.05.2016 wherein, the reference of dongle and laptop of the company is made.
b) The communication which is part of the petition dated 23.06.2017, suggesting that the valuable assets namely dongle having information with regard to the company is lying with the respondent and though the Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:05:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1334/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined petitioner has tried to reach the respondent, however, no response is given by the respondent. At page No.34 is the communication addressed by one of the customer to the present petitioner that though amount is collected by the present respondent, but the statement shows that the dues were not clear.
Similar was the email sent on 17.08.2018 by the other customer.
8.2. It is true that the said communication is post date of the application filed by the present respondent before the learned Controlling Authority, however, in the opinion of this Court, all the documents alongwith the defense of the present respondent is required to be examined by the learned Controlling Authority and thereafter, the order is to be passed.
9. As the petitioner did not remain present before the court while remanding back to the learned Controlling Authority, this Court deems it fit to impose the cost of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner which was to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from today. On depositing the said amount, the amount be disbursed in favour of the respondent by the Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:05:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1334/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025 undefined Registry after due verification.
10. The petition is accordingly allowed. The matter is remanded back to the learned Controlling Authority and learned Controlling Authority shall decide the Gratuity Application being No.504 of 2017 as a fresh, as the matter is pending since 2017, same shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of four months from today.
11. It is clarified that observation made on merit is confined to decide the present petition. Learned Controlling Authority shall take the decision in accordance with law, after considering the submission made by both the parties and without being influenced by any observation on merits made by this Court.
12. The amount deposited before the learned Controlling Authority by the petitioner shall not be disbursed till the fresh decision is rendered by the learned Controlling Authority.
13. Rule made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 29 03:05:40 IST 2025