Karnataka High Court
M/S Jain Trust vs Assistant Labour Commissioner on 7 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.323 OF 2021 (L-PG)
IN
W.P.No.7095 OF 2020 (L-PG)
BETWEEN:
M/S JAIN TRUST
FORMERLY KNOWN AS
M/S JAIN UNIVERSITY TRUST
NO.91/2, DR. A.N. KRISHNA RAO ROAD
V V PURAM, BANGALORE-560004
REP. BY ITS JOINT REGISTRAR
SRI. M.S. SANTHOSH.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. S. SRIRANGA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MRS. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADV.,)
AND:
1. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
SUB DIVISION-6
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560029.
2. SMT. SUDHA DESHMUKH
B-1-1, STERLING TERRACES
100 FEET RING ROAD
2
BANSHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU-560085.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. G.S. NAVEENKUMAR, ADV., FOR
MR. S.B. MUKKANNAPA, ADV., FOR R2
MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R1)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
28/01/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.7095/2020 (L-PG) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order
dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to
such remedy as may be available to it in law.
2. Facts leading to filing of this petition briefly stated
are that the respondent No.2 approached the Controlling
Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) by
filing an application. It is the case of the appellant that it
was not served with the notice of the proceedings of the
Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority, by an order
dated 31.01.2019, allowed the claim of the respondent No.2
and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,43,807/-
along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 31.01.2017.
The appellant came to know about the order passed by the
Controlling Authority on 06.09.2019 when it was served with
legal notice by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
3. The appellant thereupon challenged the order
passed by the Controlling Authority dated 31.01.2019 in a
writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned
Single Judge, by an order dated 28.01.2021, dismissed the
writ petition with liberty to the appellant to take recourse to
such remedy as may be available to it in law. In the
aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted
that the appellant was not served with the notice of the
proceeding before the Controlling Authority under the Act. It
is further submitted that since the order was passed in
violation of the principles of nature justice, the doctrine of
availability of alternative remedy does not apply to the fact
situation of the case. In view of the aforesaid submission,
reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme
Court in 'WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION Vs.
REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS' 1998(8) SCC 1.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondent No.1 has produced the record of
the proceeding before the Controlling Authority. Learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 has supported the order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. We have considered the submissions made on both
sides. On perusal of the record, we find that the
acknowledgement does not bear the signature and the seal is
not legible. It is pertinent to note that the appellant was
proceeded exparte in the proceeding before the Controlling
Authority on 17.11.2017. Therefore, it is evident that the
order has been passed without affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. It is also note worthy that under
Section 7 of the Act, an appeal can be preferred before the
Appellate Authority within a period of 60 days. The aforesaid
period of limitation has also expired and the delay in filing
the appeal cannot be condoned beyond the period of 60
days. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, the order
dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge is set
aside. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the
appeal on merits. Needless to state that all contentions are
left open.
The amount which has already been deposited by the
appellant shall be kept in an interest bearing account in a
National Bank during the proceeding before the learned
Single Judge and the parties shall abide by the order passed
by the learned Single Judge.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
