Madras High Court
R.Poornachandran vs The Management Of on 24 June, 2022
W.A.No.1342 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 24.06.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.No.1342 of 2022
---
R.Poornachandran .. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Management of
Jaigopal Garodia Vivekananda Vidyalaya,
Vivekananda Nagar,
Avadi, Chennai-600 054,
Rep. by its Authorized Representative
Mr.P.Sudhakar
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II,
DMS Compound, Teynampet,
Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 28.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.15871 of 2020
on the file of this Court.
For appellant : Mr.Balan Haridas
Page No.1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Honourable Chief Justice)
By this Writ Appeal, challenge is made to the order dated 28.07.2021,
whereby the Writ Petition in W.P.No.15871 of 2020 filed by the first respondent
herein, was dismissed with certain observations.
2. The Writ Petition was filed to challenge the order dated 30.01.2020
passed by the appellate authority, i.e. the second respondent/Deputy
Commissioner of Labour-II. The appeal was against the order of the Controlling
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
3. The learned counsel for the writ appellant submitted that the
observations of the learned Single Judge to deny interest on delayed payment of
gratuity, was not the subject matter in the Writ Petition, rather, it was only an
order condoning the delay in maintaining the application by the employee before
the Controlling Authority. Finding justification in the delay of 6100 days in filing
the application by the employee/writ appellant, the delay was condoned by the
Controlling Authority. It was precisely for the reason of an amendment made in
Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972 in the year 2009. The amendment in the Act of
Page No.2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2022
1972 was not in the knowledge of the employee, and therefore, finding
justification in the delay in maintaining the application, it was condoned.
4. It is submitted that there is no limitation provided under the Act of
1972 to maintain the application by the employee, if the gratuity is not paid to
him or if there is any dispute about the quantification of the gratuity. The
Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 however provides limitation. A similar
provision exists even in the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, but no such
provision exists in the Act of 1972. The subordinate Legislation cannot be applied
de-hors the Act of 1972, thus, the issue of limitation should have been concluded
on the aforesaid ground itself.
5. A reference to the judgment of a Single Bench on the issue has
been given. It is in the case of M/s.A & F Overseas Trade Limited Vs. The
Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Puducherry, Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Puducherry (in W.P.No.18129 of 2018, dated
01.10.2020).
6. In the light of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the issue of limitation
was not required to be gone into in the absence of any provision under the Act
Page No.3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2022
of 1972. The learned Single Judge should not have denied interest going beyond
the scope of the Writ Petition.
7. It is however submitted that, pursuant to the order of the High Court,
the writ appellant has received the amount of gratuity.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the appellant and perused the records.
9. The facts on record show that the Controlling Authority under the Act of
1972, condoned the delay of 6100 days without any justifiable reasons and it
could not have been condoned on the ground that the employee was an
illiterate, when he was discharging duties of a Teacher, and thus, cannot be said
to be an illiterate person and otherwise, justification of delay could not have
been on the ground of ignorance of law.
10. The issue dealt with by the Controlling Authority favourable to the
employee was assailed before the Appellate Authority by maintaining an appeal
by the employer and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the
appeal was assailed by maintaining Writ Petition.
Page No.4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2022
11. The first issue for challenge to the order passed by the learned Single
Judge is in reference to the Act of 1972 and the Payment of Gratuity (Central)
Rules, 1972. It is submitted that no limitation has been provided under the Act of
1972, and therefore, it could not have been provided in the Rules. The
subordinate Legislation cannot run counter to the Act and therefore, the issue of
limitation was irrelevant to claim the payment of gratuity by the employee. The
application was maintainable any time.
12. We have considered the submissions aforesaid and find that the writ
appellant has argued the case against his own submissions before the Controlling
Authority. It is the employee who submitted an application for condonation of
delay of 6100 days and was adjudicated by the Controlling Authority holding the
delay to be justified, thus to be condoned. If the subordinate Legislation cannot
run counter to the Act to provide limitation, the question would be as to why the
writ appellant maintained an application for condonation of delay. The
controversy before this Court is on the order passed by the Controlling Authority,
so also the Appellate Authority on the said application.
13. In view of the above, the argument in regard to the applicability of the
Page No.5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2022
subordinate Legislation cannot be raised by the writ appellant, otherwise, there
was no necessity for him to maintain the application for condonation of delay and
once it was filed and adjudicated at his instance, the argument about the
application of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 or the Central
Rules of 1972, to provide limitation, cannot be questioned, when the matter
before the learned Single Judge was about the justification of condonation of
delay on the application moved by the writ appellant.
14. The aforesaid is only one part. Otherwise, we do not find any
substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
Rules, either State or Central, on the payment of gratuity, runs counter to the
provisions of the Act of 1972. The Act of 1972 provides for the mode of payment
of gratuity by the employer and in case of dispute, who would be the authority to
adjudicate it. The Rules framed by the Central Government, so also the State
Government, provide limitation for maintaining an application by the employee
for the claim of gratuity. The provision to provide limitation for maintaining an
application cannot be said to be contrary to any provisions of the Act of 1972. It
is not that the Act of 1972 bars limitation to maintain the application by the
employee and de-hors the aforesaid, Rules have been framed.
Page No.6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2022
15. It is settled law that the subordinate Legislation can be brought to
supplement the provisions of the Act, but cannot supplant it.
16. In the present case, we do not find that the provisions of the Act of
1972 are supplanted by Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules,
1972, or even the State Rules and thus, even the second issue raised for the first
time, could not have been accepted and again, the issue aforesaid could not
have been gone into, when the challenge to the order of the Appellate Authority
was on the application submitted by the writ appellant himself to seek
condonation of delay. Accordingly, even the second argument raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.
17. The issue now remains regarding the denial of interest for the
intervening period. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ appellant
that the issue before the learned Single Judge was in reference to the order
passed by the Controlling Authority to condone the delay in maintaining the
application. Challenge to the aforesaid order was not accepted by the Appellate
Authority under the Act of 1972. Thus, the issue of interest could not have been
dealt with.
Page No.7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2022
18. To analyse the issue aforesaid, we have gone through the judgment
and find that, to do justice, and despite the delay of 6100 days, a direction for
payment of the gratuity was given, otherwise, in the absence of justification for
the delay of 6100 days which is nearly 17 years, the application could have been
dismissed to deny even the payment of gratuity. It could not have been
condoned due to lack of knowledge of the amendment in Section 2(e) of the Act
of 1972. It is settled proposition of law that ignorance of law is no excuse, and
the writ appellant is not an illiterate person, but was a Teacher. The learned
Single Judge, yet issued direction for payment of gratuity. Finding delay of 6100
days in maintaining the application, payment of interest was denied. In fact, the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is beneficial to the writ
appellant, as he has been extended the benefit of gratuity, despite enormous
delay in maintaining the application and a finding has been recorded by the
learned Single Judge that there was no justifiable reason for the delay. It is true
that the learned Single Judge should have restrained the order at that stage,
quashing the order of the Controlling Authority, so also the Appellate Authority,
to condone the delay. We find some contradiction in the order under challenge,
thus, to have a clarity, we do not find that the delay in filing application was
justified on the ground alleged before the Controlling Authority. The outcome of
the aforesaid has been spelt out earlier, which is nothing but to dismiss the
Page No.8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2022
application and the consequence would have been to deny even payment of
gratuity. If we strictly go with the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant, even the direction for payment of gratuity is to be set aside, as it was
not the issue before the learned Single Judge, but it is admitted that the amount
deposited towards gratuity has already been received by the writ appellant. Thus
we do not cause interference in the order.
19. For all the reasons given above, we find no reason to cause
interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge to deny
interest. The Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(M.N.B., C J) (N.M.,J)
24.06.2022
Index: Yes/no
Speaking Order: Yes/no
cs/dsn
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II,
DMS Compound, Teynampet,
Chennai-600 006.
Page No.9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1342 of 2022
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
N.MALA, J
cs
W.A.No.1342 of 2022
24.06.2022
Page No.10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
