Madras High Court
The Management vs The Authority Under on 4 April, 2025
Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022 in
W.P.No.34852 of 2016
The Management,
The Tiruvateeswarar Hindu
Janopakara Nidhi Ltd.,
Rep by Administrative Director,
Old No.36, New No.50,
Kuppumuthu Street, Triplicane,
Chennai 600 005.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Authority under
Payment of Gratuity Act /
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
O/o. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour - 1,
Chennai - 6.
2.S.Ravichandran
... Respondents
Prayer : Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section
114 C.P.C., to review the order passed in W.P.No.34852 of 2016 dated
15.06.2022 on the file of this Court.
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )
Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy
For Respondents : Mr.V.Umakanth, GA for R1
Mr.S.Sureshkumar for R2
ORDER
This Review Petition has been filed to review the order passed in
W.P.No.34852 of 2016 dated 15.06.2022.
2. Heard Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.V.Umakanth, learned Government Advocate for R1 and
Mr.S.Sureshkumar, learned counsel for R2 and perused the materials
available on record.
3. The Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the
order of the first respondent in P.G.No.148 of 2014 dated 04.02.2015 and
consequential order in P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 dated 30.06.2016 and
quash the same. The said Writ Petition has been dismissed on
15.06.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )
4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the
Court has addressed only the issue raised in P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015
dated 30.06.2016 by leaving aside the order passed in P.G.No.148 of
2014 dated 04.02.2015. P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 has been filed by the
petitioner to set aside the exparte order passed in P.G.No.148 of 2014
along with a petition to condone the delay of 72 days. The said
P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 has been refused to be entertained as it has been
barred by limitation.
5. This Court has observed in its order dated 15.06.2022 that the
High Court in its exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India should not entertain the Writ Petition in respect of the matters for
which the statutory remedy is available, but has barred by limitation. As
such, it is not possible to extend any equitable relief contrary to law by
placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Vs. Glaxo Smith
Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Order dated 06.05.2020 in Civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )
Appeal No.2413 of 2020). On that ground, the Writ Petition has been
dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the review petitioner tried to make a
distinction between the appreciation of order passed in P.G.I.A.No.146 of
2015 and order passed in P.G.No.148 of 2014. So far as the order passed
in P.G.No.148 of 2014 is concerned, the petitioner can invoke the appeal
remedy as provided under the statute. As there was a delay in filing an
application to set aside the exparte order, he had filed an interim
application to condone the delay and that was refused to be accepted.
7. When this Court has taken a stand not to interfere with the
application filed with a petition to condone the delay, it goes without
saying that the petitioner cannot address the order passed in P.G.No.148
of 2014. In other words, what the petitioner cannot directly address
before the appellate authority by way of preferring an appeal within the
statutory limit cannot be addressed before the High Court by invoking
the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )
India. The order passed by this Court on 15.06.2022 by relying on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Assistant
Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer
Health Care Limited (Order dated 06.05.2020 in Civil Appeal No.2413
of 2020) is applied to the matter in issue in a comprehensive manner and
hence, there cannot be any deviation between the order passed in
P.G.No.148 of 2014 and the order passed in P.G.I.A.No.146 of 2015 now
claimed by the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain
this Review Petition.
8. In the result, this Review Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes / No 04.04.2025
Speaking / Non-speaking
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
gsk
To
The Authority under
Payments of Gratuity Act /
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
O/o. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour - 1,
Chennai - 6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )
R.N.MANJULA, J.
gsk
Rev.Appln.No.255 of 2022 in
04.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 07:04:41 pm )
