Madras High Court
Hasbro Clothing Pvt.Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Labour on 24 June, 2022
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.P.No.15168 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.15168 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No.14347 of 2022
HASBRO Clothing Pvt.Ltd.,
No.23B Alapakkam Main Road,
Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600 095.
Rep. by its Director
Mr.Mohamed Hanif ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
O/o. The Joint Commissioner of Labour-II,
The Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity,
DMS Campus, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.K.V.Divya ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the 1st Respondent pertaining to the Impugned Order Reference No.
N.Dis D1/2393/2022 dated 22.03.2022 made in I.A.No.94 of 2020 and quash
the same and consequently remand the matter back to the 1 st Respondent to
hear the matter afresh in accordance with Rule 11(5) of the Payment of
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15168 of 2022
Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972.
For Petitioner : Mr.Uttam Joseph Cheriyan
For R1 : Mr.T.Arunkumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the Impugned Order Reference No. N.Dis D1/2393/2022 dated 22.03.2022 made in I.A.No.94 of 2020 and quash the same and consequently, to remand the matter back to the 1st respondent to hear the matter afresh in accordance with Rule 11(5) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner-company is registered under the Companies Act, 2013. The 2nd respondent was appointed as a Designer by the petitioner-company on 01.01.2009. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent was promoted as Category Manager-Design in April 2018. Thereafter, he was terminated from service due to redundancy during November 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner-company has settled a sum of 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15168 of 2022 Rs.3,05,590/- to the 2nd respondent as a full and final settlement. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has sent a letter dated 17.02.2020 to the petitioner- company, stating that the total gratuity due payable by the petitioner-company is Rs.4,34,039/-. Therefore, the 2nd respondent demanded the balance gratuity amount. The petitioner-company has not settled the same. Hence, the 2nd respondent has filed I.A.No.94 of 2020 under Rule 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 before the 1st respondent alleging that the petitioner-company has not paid the gratuity amount to him.
3. Thereafter, the 1st respondent had sent a notice (undated) to the petitioner-company to appear for hearing on 28.07.2021. The said notice of hearing was received by the petitioner-company on 02.08.2021 i.e. five days after the hearing had taken place. However, on 30.07.2021, the 1 st respondent has passed an ex parte order and directed the petitioner-company to pay the balance sum of Rs.2,85,496/- to the 2nd respondent.
4. Aggrieved by the said ex parte order dated 30.07.2021, the petitioner-company has filed a Review Petition in S.R.No.5174 of 2021 under Rule 11(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 before the 1st respondent. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15168 of 2022 By the impugned order dated 22.03.2022, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai has returned the said review petition and the petitioner- company was advised to seek remedy only before the Appellate Authority. Challenging the said impugned order, the petitioner-company has filed the instant writ petition before this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-company submitted that the said reason as found in the impugned order is totally unacceptable on the ground that the petitioner-company was set ex parte before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai. He further submitted that as per Rule 11(5) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, which clearly prescribes as follows:-
“If the employer concerned fails to appear on the specified date of hearing after due service of notice without sufficient cause, the controlling authority may proceed to hear and determine the application ex parte. If the applicant fails to appear on the specified date of hearing without sufficient cause, the controlling authority may dismiss the application:
Provided that an order under this sub-rule may, on good cause being shown within thirty days of the said order, be 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15168 of 2022 reviewed and the application re-heard after giving not less than fourteen days' notice to the opposite party of the date fixed for re-hearing of the application.”
6. Therefore, in the instant case, the endorsement made in the rejection order is totally unsustainable. Therefore, he prays that an appropriate direction may be issued by this Court to hear the matter afresh by the 1st respondent.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent has not disputed the said fact and aforesaid Rule 11(5) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972.
8. In the light of the above said specific Rule for considering the review application, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour/the 1st respondent has totally lost his sight and returned the review application with an endorsement that the petitioner-company was advised to file an appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority.
5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15168 of 2022
9. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to pass orders as follows:-
(i) The petitioner-company is directed to resubmit the application before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour/the 1st respondent, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) If any such application received by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour/the 1st respondent, the same shall be considered in the light of the aforesaid Rule 11(5) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 and to take appropriate decision, on merits and in accordance with law.
10. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dm
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15168 of 2022
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
O/o. The Joint Commissioner of Labour-II,
The Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity,
DMS Campus, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 006.
7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15168 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J
dm
W.P.No.15168 of 2022
24.06.2022
8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis