Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: gratuity rules in Race Course Road vs The Controlling Authority on 18 November, 2022Matching Fragments
4. Rule 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 makes it clear that even for condoning the delay for the maximum period of 30 days for filing an application to set aside the ex-parte order passed under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, sufficient cause will have to be shown by an employer for the said delay. Rule 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972, reads as follow:
9. In order to substantiate his submission that the Controlling Authority has acted in flagrant disregard to law/Rules/procedure and has acted in violation of the principles of natural justice, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Management relied upon the following Rules under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 for the purpose of pointing out to this Court that the procedure contemplated in those Rules was not followed and the principles of natural justice were violated. The relevant Rules are Rules 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973, which are extracted hereunder:
18. From the impugned common Award, it is not known as to whether the procedure contemplated under Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, had been followed or not.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26440 of 2022 etc. batch
19. Similarly, under Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, in case an employer refuses to accept the nomination to entertain the application sought to be filed under Rule 7 or issues a notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 either specifying an amount of gratuity which is claimed by the applicant less than what is payable or rejects eligibility to payment of gratuity, or having received an application under Rule 7 fails to issue any notice as required under Rule 8 within the time specified therein, the employee may, within 90 days of the occurrence of the cause for the application, apply in Form-N to the Controlling Authority for issuing a direction under sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, with as many extra copies as there are opposite parties.
20. From the impugned Award as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is not clear as to whether the procedure contemplated under Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973, was followed by the Controlling Authority or not.
21. Under Rule 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973, it is clear that the Controlling Authority, after completion of hearing on the date fixed under sub-rule (1) or after such further evidence, examination of documents, witnesses, hearing and enquiry, as may be deemed necessary, shall record its finding as to whether any amount is payable to the applicant as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26440 of 2022 etc. batch gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act or not, and a copy of the finding shall be given to each of the parties.