Madras High Court
St.Joseph College Of Engineering vs R.Vijayarajaj on 9 April, 2021
W.P.No.9129 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.9129 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.9669 of 2021
St.Joseph College of Engineering,
Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,
Mr.Babu Manoharan
Old Mahapalipuram Road,
Chennai – 600 119. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. R.Vijayarajaj
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
O/o.Joint Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Campus, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified, calling for the records pertaining to
the order dated 12.01.2021 made in P.G.No.108 of 2018 passed by the 2 nd
Respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to
re-enquire the case in the manner set out under the law.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sashidhar Sivakumar
*****
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 12.01.2021
made in P.G.No.108 of 2018 by the 2nd respondent, the Petitioner-College was
directed to pay all the benefits to the 1st respondent within 30 days.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9129 of 2021
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Notice to the
Respondents is dispensed with, as no adverse order is going to be passed against
them.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner-College that the 1st Respondent served
as a Professor in the Petitioner-College from 27.05.2007 to 06.04.2017 and was
relieved from the service on his own accord. It is further case of the petitioner
that the 1st Respondent filed a case in P.G.No.108 of 2018 before the 2nd
Respondent under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for
disbursement of benefits payable to him and on receipt of the summon, though
the Petitioner-College filed a detailed counter, disputing the period of service
of the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent, without recording any evidence,
passed an order on 12.01.2021, as if the 1st Respondent led his evidence and the
same was taken on record. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner-College
is before this Court, on the ground that there is a violation of principles of
natural justice.
4. The Order of the Controlling Authority dated 12.01.2021 is under
challenge on the main ground that no opportunity to cross examine the 1 st
Respondent was afforded to the Petitioner-College and the Controlling
Authority, without allowing the Petitioner-College to mark documents, has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9129 of 2021
passed an order, holding that the Petitioner-College is liable to pay the gratuity
amount to the 1st Respondent to the tune of approximately Rs.8 Lakhs.
Therefore, the Petitioner-College seeks to interfere with the Order of the
Controlling Authority and to remit the matter back to the same Authority for
fresh consideration on due compliance of the principles of natural justice.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 7 (7) of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 provides an appeal remedy against the order of the
Controlling Authority and it cannot be said that the Controlling Authority alone
is empowered to permit the parties to adduce evidence both oral and
documentary. A reading of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act r/w Rule
18, more particularly Rule 18 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules,
1973, is very clear that even the Appellate Authority has power to consider the
request of the parties concerned to lead additional evidence in order to render
a substantial justice. The words 'additional pleas' include additional
documentary and verbal evidence insofar as the additional grounds are
concerned, which were not taken before the Controlling Authority. In addition
to the above, the Appellate Authority is also empowered to remand the matter,
in case the Appellate Authority comes to the conclusion that the finding of the
Controlling Authority is perverse and the Controlling Authority had not
considered the material aspects placed before the Controlling Authority and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9129 of 2021
that the parties have not filed additional documents as referred to in the
Grounds of Appeal, which could not have been dealt with by the Controlling
Authority. Instead of remanding the matter, it is better that the Appellate
Authority decides the matter on merits to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
6. The Petitioner-College, without exhausting the appeal remedy, has
straightaway approached this Court, which will, not only give rise to several
litigations, but will also make the appeal remedy provision of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 absolutely redundant. In the case of Onward Trading
Company, Madras Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madras and another
reported in 1989 (2) LLN 672 and 673, this Court held that if the petitioner
fails to deposit the amount of gratuity within the stipulated time, then the
Appeal itself is incompetent.
7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid judgment, this Court is not inclined to
grant the relief sought for by the Petitioner-College in this case. The Petitioner-
College has received the order only in February, 2021 and that the time to
prefer an appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not lapsed, as
period, namely, from the date of filing the Writ Petition till a copy of this order
is made ready, can be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation,
and the Appellate Authority has no power to entertain an appeal, if it is filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9129 of 2021
beyond the period of 120 days (60 days + 60 days), as adumbrated under the
Act.
8. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The Appellate Authority is
directed to entertain the appeal, if it is filed by the Petitioner-College, after
compliance of deposit as per the order of the Controlling Authority. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
09.04.2021
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking Order: Yes / No
ar
To:
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
O/o.Joint Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Campus, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9129 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
ar
W.P.No.9129 of 2021
09.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
