Madras High Court
S. Balamurugan vs The Controlling Authority Under The on 2 January, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No. 38089 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No. 38089 of 2024
S. Balamurugan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour -1,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.
2. BGR Energy Systems Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
443, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 018. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent vide
No.Na.Ka.E/2830/2024 on 24.10.2024 returning the direction petition filed by
the petitioner insisting him to file the condone delay application in filing the
direction petition for payment of gratuity against the second respondent and
quash the same and further direct the first respondent to number the
application for direction for the payment of gratuity field by the petitioner
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 38089 of 2024
without insisting for filing of the condone delay application.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan
For R1 : Mr.K.Surendran
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : No appearance
ORDER
This writ petition is filed calling for the records pertaining to the
proceedings of the first respondent, namely the Controlling Authority under
the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 -the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Teynampet, Chennai- 600 006, dated 24.10.2024, inasmuch as it returns the
application filed by the petitioner in Form N under Rule 10 of the Payment of
Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, on the ground that the application for
condonation of delay was not filed.
2. On perusal of the rules, it can be seen that any employee is entitled to
apply to the employer in Form I for payment of gratuity if the amount remains
unpaid. If the same is not acted upon or refused by the employer, the
employee concerned is entitled to file an application before the Controlling
Authority within a period of 90 days.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. In this case, there is no dispute that the application in Form N has
been filed within a period of 90 days. The only objection on the part of the
first respondent, while repeatedly returning the application is that the
petitioner’s services came to an end on 31.12.2023 and therefore when 30
days had already passed, no application for condonation of delay was filed.
4. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
judgement in W.P.No. 12937 of 2018 dated 01.10.2020 passed by this Court.
A perusal of the same, this Court had considered the judgement of the
Bombay High Court in H.Jayarama Shetty –vs- Sangli Bank
Limited.,[(2005) 3 LLJ 637 (Bom)] where the Bombay High Court held that
the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, has to be read in consonance
with the provisions of the Act. When no limitation is prescribed under the
Act, the rules have to be interpreted accordingly, as it is beneficial legislation.
Every day when the employer fails to pay the gratuity, the same would be a
recurring cause of action. Therefore, an application for condonation of delay
was not necessary. This Court had followed the said judgement and held
accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. In view thereof, when the application in Form N was returned by the
first respondent, in the re-presentation memo, the petitioner duly cited the said
judgment. However, without considering the same and without giving any
reasons, the application was once again returned by the impugned proceedings
6. I am of the view that, in view of the judgement in W.P.No. 12937 of
2018, no application for condonation of delay was necessary and authority
ought to have numbered the petition and entertained it on merits. Since this
issue only pertains to the re-presentation and numbering of the petition, this
Court considered the matter at the admission stage itself. No notice has been
issued to the second respondent management and the writ petition is disposed
of on the following terms:-
(i) The petitioner shall once again re-present the papers by
duly enclosing the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 12937 of
2018 dated 01.10.2020.
(ii) Upon such re-presentation, the first respondent shall
consider and number the petition in accordance with law, issue
notice to the parties and dispose of the same in accordance with
law.
(iii) No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
02.01.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsl
To
The Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour -1,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
02.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
