Madras High Court
Tamilnadu State Transport ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 9 July, 2021
W.P.No.9904 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.9904 of 2005
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Salem) Ltd., Salem,
rep. by its Managing Director,
102, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem – 636 007. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Salem.
2. M.Kandasamy ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st
Respondent in P.G.No.31/2003, dated 10.06.2004 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Raghu
For 1st Respondent : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal,
Government Advocate
ORDER
Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition challenging the order
dated 10.06.2004 passed by the 1st Respondent herein in P.G.No.31/2003, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9904 of 2005
determining a sum of Rs.52,604/- as payment of Gratuity to the 2nd
Respondent/workman.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material documents available on record.
3. In terms of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, read
with Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973, the
Petitioner has got a right of Appeal and the maximum period to file an
Appeal is 120 days (60 days + 60 days). The order under challenge dated
10.06.2004 passed by the Controlling Authority was received by the
Petitioner/Management on 23.06.2004 vide Ref.No.19369 and the Writ
Petition was filed on 21.03.2005.
4. It is represented that, the Petitioner/Management has deposited
the Gratuity amount before preferring the Appeal and the time limit for filing
the Appeal lapsed. Without exhausting the Appeal remedy, the Petitioner has
straightaway approached this Court, which will, not only give rise to several
litigations, but will also make the Appeal provision under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972, absolutely redundant. In the case of Onward Trading
Company, Madras Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madras and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9904 of 2005
another reported in 1989 (2) LLN 672 and 673, this Court has held that, if
the Petitioner fails to deposit the amount of gratuity within the stipulated
time, then the Appeal itself is incompetent.
5. Keeping in mind the aforesaid judgment and that, the Appellate
Authority has become functus officio, this Court is not inclined to grant the
relief sought for by the Petitioner in this case. If the 2nd
Respondent/employee is alive, he is permitted to withdraw the Gratuity
amount. In case, the employee is no more, his legal heirs are permitted to
withdraw the amount, on receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs.
Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.10755 of 2005 is closed.
09.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(aeb)
To:
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.9904 of 2005
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
(aeb)
W.P.No.9904 of 2005
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
