Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Surprisingly, the plea was made on behalf of the applicants through their representative, Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, before the first respondent that as the applicants are entitled for statutory benefit of gratuity, the petitioners were estopped from raising the plea of limitation. In my considered view, this was a callous and baseless averment as Rule 10 of Payment of Gratuity Rules (Central Rules, 1972) impose a time of 90 days from the date of occurrence of the cause for the application to seek for gratuity and to be applied in form - 'N' and if it is not filed, the delay can be condoned on sufficient cause being shown. No cause has been shown and the first respondent went on citing one judgment or the other without there being any factual foundation. No legal precedents can be applied in a matter concerning condonation unless the factual foundation is made and unless it is shown that the principle laid down in any case can be made applicable having regard to the facts of the case."
(2) Application under Sub-rule (1) and other documents relevant to such an application shall be presented in person to the controlling authority or shall be sent by registered post acknowledgment due."

8. According to the above, thus a person who has rendered continuous service for not less than five years on his superannuation or on his retirement or resignation or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease, becomes eligible for payment of gratuity and he or any person authorised in writing to act on his behalf, can send a written application to the employer within the prescribed time limit for payment of such gratuity--the time limit being spelled out in Rule 7 aforequoted to be, "ordinarily within thirty days from the date the gratuity became payable". The employer is made liable to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to Whom the gratuity is payable under Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act and if the amount of gratuity payable is not paid by the employer within the period of thirty days, he is required to pay simple interest at such rate not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits as provided under Sub-section (3-A). The above mandate, however, is substituted by Act 22 of 1987. Mechanism, however, for resolving the dispute with regard to any matter or matters in Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 7 is introduced by Act 25 of 1984. However, rules have existed since September, 1972 and spell out that ordinarily the application for gratuity shall be presented to the employer within thirty days from the date the gratuity became payable and an application for payment of gratuity filed after the expiry of the period specified in the rule shall also be entertained by the employer, "if the applicant adduces sufficient cause for the delay in preferring his claim and, "no claim for gratuity under the Act shall be invalid merely because the claimant failed to present his application within the specified period". The law, as in the rules, has contemplated," any dispute in this regard shall be referred to the controlling authority for his decision". Employer's responsibilities on receipt of application for gratuity are -- (1) within fifteen days of the receipt of the application under Rule 7 for payment of gratuity, he shall, "if the claim is found admissible on verification", issue a notice in Form 'L' to the applicant employee specifying the amount of gratuity payable and fixing a date not being later than the thirteenth day after the date of receipt of the application for payment thereof, or (2) if the claim for gratuity is not found admissible, issue a notice in Form 'M' to the applicant employee specifying the reasons why the claim for gratuity is not considered admissible, and (3) in either case the employer shall endorse a copy of the notice to the controlling authority. Rule 10 gives to the person eligible for gratuity a period of ninety days to make an application to the Controlling Authority for a direction in the case of the employer -- (i) refusing to accept a nomination or to entertain an application sought to be filed under Rule 7, or (ii) issuing a notice under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 either specifying an amount of gratuity which is considered by the applicant less than what is payable or rejecting eligibility to payment of gratuity, or (iii) having received an application under Rule 7, failing to issue any notice as required under Rule 8 within the time specified therein. Controlling Authority is empowered to accept any application from the person eligible for gratuity even beyond the period of ninety days of the events as above on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant.

This rule has intended only to give to the employee opportunity to seek expeditious payment of gratuity by the employer, who in any case under the Act, whether any application is made by the employee or not, is required to pay the gratuity to the employee. It is not possible to read in this rule any such limitation that in case no application is filed by the employee or on his behalf within thirty days from the date the gratuity became payable, the claim shall become extinguished. That the employee can make an application even after the said period of thirty days and the application made by the employee shall be considered by the employer for such notice as Rule 8 has envisaged and the employer is obliged to consider the same is envisaged in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 which provides, inter alia, that an application for payment of gratuity filed after the expiry of the period specified in the rule shall also be entertained by the employer. This Sub-rule, however, says the employer shall entertain the application made beyond the period of thirty days, "if the applicant adduces sufficient cause for the delay in preferring his claim" and adds, "and no claim for gratuity under the Act shall be invalid merely because the claimant failed to present his application within the specified period". If there is a dispute in respect of payment of gratuity by the employer and the application is filed after the expiry of the period of thirty days and the employer is not willing to entertain the claim, it is a dispute which this sub-rule says, "shall be referred to the controlling authority for his decision". Procedural limitation, however, is contemplated under Rule 10 in three circumstances -- (1) if an employer refuses to accept a nomination or to entertain an application sought to be filed under Rule 7; (2) issues a notice under sub-rule of Rule 8 either specifying an amount of gratuity which is considered by the applicant less than what is payable or rejecting the eligibility to payment of gratuity; or (3) having received an application under Rule 7 fails to issue any notice as required under Rule 8 within the time specified therein. The period fixed for such application to the Controlling Authority for direction to the employer is ninety days of the occurrence of the cause for the application. The Controlling Authority, however, is given the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown by the applicant.

18. A similar view is expressed in Ramjilal v. Elphinstone Spg. & Wvg. Mill Co. Ltd., (supra) by a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court in these words at p. 1706 :

"Section 7 Gratuity Act requires a person entitled to the payment of gratuity to send a written application to the employer within such time as may be prescribed. Rule 7 Payment of Gratuity (Maharashtra) Rules, 1972 provides that the employee entitled to the gratuity shall apply ordinarily within thirty days from the date the gratuity becomes payable. It is undoubtedly true that the petitioner had applied on November 4, 1976, which is long after the expiry of period of thirty days from the date when the right to gratuity accrued. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 empowers the authority to condone the delay and further issues a flat that no claim for gratuity shall be invalid merely because the claimant failed to present his application within the specified period. The rule leaves no manner of doubt that the Legislature intended that the claim or application for gratuity by an employee should not be defeated on technical consideration and the authority should be very liberal in condoning the delay. The Controlling Authority relying upon this provision had thought it fit to condone the delay in presenting the application."