Madhya Pradesh High Court
Janpad Panchayat Masturi vs Appellate Authority And Dy. Labour ... on 7 October, 1993
Equivalent citations: [1994(68)FLR281], (1998)IIILLJ163MP
Author: D.M. Dharmadhikari
Bench: D.M. Dharmadhikari
JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act'), passed an order on August 13, 1992, directing payment of gratuity amount in the sum of Rs. 52,856/-with ten per cent interest, to respondent No. 3, who retired as an employee of the petitioner Janpad Panchayat Masturi in tahsi! and district Bilaspur.
2. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority. By the impugned order passed on December 31, 1992, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal summarily; on the ground that the petitioner as appellant failed to deposit the amount of gratuity or produce a certificate of the Controlling Authority of its deposit as required by a condition precedent under Second proviso to Sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order of the Appellate Authority, firstly on the ground that the Appellate Authority should not have dismissed the appeal summarily without affording the appellant an opportunity to make the requisite deposit of the gratuity amount. The second ground urged is that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the Janpad Panchayat Act and the conditions of service of its employees are governed by the provisions of the Act and Rules framed under the State Act.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 supports the impugned order of the Appellate Authority and also made an attempt to support the same on merit. At the outset, we may state that since the Appellate Authority has not at all touched the merits of the appeal and the tenability of the ground urged before us of the provisions of the Act, being not applicable to the Janpad Panchayats, we do not wish to enter into that controversy.
5. Taking up the first ground urged that the appeal could not have been summarily dismissed by the Appellate Authority, without affording opportunity to the appellant to make the requisite deposits, we find that if such a prayer is even made now, it would be open to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the application for re-admission of the appeal on the basis of the deposit subsequently made. The second proviso to Sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act reads as under :
"Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under Sub-section (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount".
From the above quoted provision, we find that the appellate authority has jurisdiction to consider the question of admission of the appeal, if requisite deposit is made.
6. We, therefore, partly allow this petition with a direction to the Appellate Authority/respondent No. 1 to permit the petitioner as an appellant before it to make suitable application along with the requisite deposit or a certificate in terms of second proviso to Sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act and consider admission of the appeal and its hearing on merits, after due notice to the opposite party i.e., respondent No. 3. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on November 4, 1993 for taking suitable steps in the light of the observations made by us above. There shall however, be no order as to costs of this petition. The amount of security, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner.