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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.