Madras High Court
The Management vs The Controlling Authority Under ... on 23 February, 2022
W.A(MD)Nos.110/2011, 239/2012 & 1609 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.A(MD)Nos.110 of 2011, 239 of 2012 and 1609 of 2016
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2011
and
C.M.P(MD)No.12194 of 2016
W.A(MD)No.110 of 2010
The Management,
A-2295, Madurai Co-operative Printing
Works Ltd., 15 T.P.K.Road,
Andalpuram, Madurai-3. :Appellant/Petitioner
.vs.
1.The Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act,
(The Assistant Commissioner of Labour),
Sundaram Theatre Road,
K.K.Nagar,
Madurai-625 020.
2.M.Mani
C/o.Tamilaga Kooturavu Sanga
Oozhiyar Sangam, 19, Bharathiyar Road,
Madurai-625 018. : Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Pattent,
praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.13195/10; Dt;
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.110/2011, 239/2012 & 1609 of 2016
29.10.2010, grant the relief as prayed for in the writ petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Seenivasagam
For R1 : Mr.D.Gandhiraj
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.S.Satheesh Kumar
W.A(MD)No.239 of 2012
The Management,
A-2295, Madurai Co-operative Printing
Works Ltd., 15 T.P.K.Road,
Andalpuram, Madurai-3. :Appellant/Petitioner
.vs.
1.The Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act,
(The Assistant Commissioner of Labour),
Sundaram Theatre Road,
K.K.Nagar,
Madurai-625 020.
2.S.Shunmugam
C/o.Tamilnadu Kooturavu Sanga
Oozhiyargal Sangam, 233, Kamarajar Salai,
Madurai-625 009. : Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Pattent,
praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.1438/09;
Dt; 29.10.2011, grant the relief as prayed for in the writ petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Seenivasagam
For R1 : Mr.D.Gandhiraj
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.110/2011, 239/2012 & 1609 of 2016
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.T.Ravichandran
W.A(MD)No.1609 of 2016
The Management,
A-2295, Madurai Co-operative Printing
Works Ltd., 15 T.P.K.Road,
Andalpuram, Madurai-3. :Appellant/Petitioner
.vs.
1.The Appellate Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act,
(Joint Commissioner of Labour),
East Marret Street,
Madurai-625 001.
2.The Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act,
(The Assistant Commissioner of Labour)
Sundaram Theatre Road,
K.K.Nagar,
Madurai-625 020.
3.C.Christhudass : Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Pattent,
praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.11729/10;
Dt; 31.08.2012, grant the relief as prayed for in the writ petition.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Seenivasagam
For R1 & R2 :Mr.D.Gandhiraj
Special Government Pleader
For R3 :Mr.T.Ravichandran
3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.110/2011, 239/2012 & 1609 of 2016
COMMON ORDER
********************
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J
These writ appeals are against the orders of the learned
Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the Management
challenging the orders of the Controlling Authority passed under
Sub-Section 4 of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
2. One of the grounds, on which, the writ petitions were
dismissed is that the writ petitions are not maintainable as the
Management has got the remedy by way of an appeal under Sub-
Section 7 of Section 7 of the Act to the Appropriate Authority. The
learned Single Judge has refused the liberty to file an appeal before
the Appellate Authority on the ground that the appeal would be
time barred under Sub-Section 7 of Section 7 of the Act, inasmuch
as the writ petiitons have been filed after two years after the order
of the Original Authority. Aggrieved against the said orders, these
writ appeals have been filed.
3. We have heard Mr.S.Seenivasagam, learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.110/2011, 239/2012 & 1609 of 2016
petitioner, Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the official respondents and Mr.T.Ravichandran and
Mr.Satheeshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents.
4. The workmen sought for gratuity and moved before the
Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The said
Authority, by order, dated 06.08.2007 directed the appellant
Management to pay gratuity on the basis of the last drawn salary,
which was not disputed before the said authority. The writ
petitions were filed questioning the said order after two years of
the order on the ground that the quantum of last drawn salary is
under dispute as the settlement arrived at between the
Management and the workers have been cancelled by the
Management.
5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on
the ground that in view of the availability of the alternative remedy,
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be
invoked. It is seen from the order of the learned Single Judge that
liberty sought for to challenge the order before the Appellate
Authority, namely, the State Government under Sub Section (7) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.110/2011, 239/2012 & 1609 of 2016
Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act was rejected on the
ground that the appeal would be time barred and the appellate
authority, namely, the Government has no power to condone the
delay for a period beyond 60 days.
6. Mr.S.Seenivasagam, learned counsel for the appellant
would invite us to go into the merits of the matter and decided as to
the last drawn wages. He would also submit that since what is the
last drawn wages is in dispute, the Competent Authority was not
right in directing the payment of gratuity. In fact, an order passed
under Section 7(4) of the Act is not disputed. Sub Section (7) of the
Act, reads as follows:-
“7(7)Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-
section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the
receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate
Government or such other authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government in this behalf;
Provided that the appropriate Government or the
appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is
satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient
cause from preferring the appeal within the said period
of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period
of sixty days.”
7. A reading of Sub Section 7 of Section 7 of the Act would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.110/2011, 239/2012 & 1609 of 2016
show that the Appellate Authority does not have power to condone
the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal. The orders impugned in
the writ petitions were passed 06.09.2007and the writ petitions
were filed on 08.02.2009 almost after two years. Therefore, once
the writ petitions are held to be not maintainable, the petitioners in
the writ petitions could not invoke the appellate remedy also, in
view of Sub-Section 7 of the Section 7 of the Act.
8. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge. These writ appeals fail and they are
dismissed on the ground of maintainability. We are not going into
the merits of the matter. The appellant Management is directed to
pay the gratuity as directed by the Competent Authority within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[R.S.M.,J.] & [N.S.K.,J.]
23.02.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.110/2011, 239/2012 & 1609 of 2016
To
1.The Appellate Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act,
(Joint Commissioner of Labour),
East Marret Street,
Madurai-625 001.
2.The Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act,
(The Assistant Commissioner of Labour),
Sundaram Theatre Road,
K.K.Nagar,
Madurai-625 020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.110/2011, 239/2012 & 1609 of 2016
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
am
0RDER MADE IN
W.A(MD)Nos.110 of 2011,
239 of 2012 and 1609 of 2016
23.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
