Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Petitioner in W.P.No.11613 of 2000 has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents and quash the order of the first respondent dated 9.2.2000 in G.A.No.2/99 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to hear and decide the Gratuity Application No.2/99 on merits and in accordance with law.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition No.7353 of 1999 the petitioners would submit that they were employed by the Imperial Bank of India, which was taken over by the 3rd respondent on 1 .7.1955 under the State Bank of India Act,1955; that they retired from State Bank of India on various dates; that at the time of their retirement, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as the Act) came into force on 16.9.1972; that they were paid gratuity as per Section 4 of the Act at the rate of 15 days' salary for every completed year of service subject to the ceiling prevailing at that time; that they were not paid the better terms of gratuity according to paragraph 370 of the LAT Award which stood protected under Section 4(5) of the Act; that earlier, the employees of the Imperial Bank of India were covered by gratuity scheme based on two awards of the year 1 947-48; that one was the Divetia award which was applicable to Imperial Bank employees working in Bombay and Ahmedabad, which provided for payment of gratuity of one month's last drawn basic pay for every one year of service subject to a ceiling; that the Gupta award which was applicable to the employees of Imperial Bank of India (Bengal circle) provided for gratuity at the same rate of basic pay on Divetia award but without ceiling was made applicable to all the officers of the Imperial Bank of India outside Bombay and Ahmedabad; that the LAT gave an award in April,1954 removing the ceiling on the payment of gratuity only under the Divetia award as it was an anomaly; that this modification along with other modifications was incorporated into the Shastry Award by the Industrial Disputes(Banking companies) Decision Act,1955 (41 of 1955) which was to be in force till 31.3.1959; that this act statutorily protected subsequently under Sec.7 of the State Bank of India Act,1955 which came into force on 1.7.1955 relating to pension, gratuity and other matters of the Imperial Bank of India are protected till they are duly altered according to law, but there was no alteration; that one P.V.Raju, who retired in April,1986 filed a case under the Act claiming differential gratuity, which was ordered by the controlling authority in 1992 to be paid by the third respondent-bank, which was confirmed by appellate authority, against which the bank filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16842/94 on the file of the High Court, Andhra Pradesh, which is pending; that though the learned Single Judge held the condonation wrong, in W.A.Nos.230 and 253 to 27 3 of 1996, the Division Bench held on construction of the Gratuity Central Rules that there was really no delay, which will apply to this case also; that the controlling authority subsequently computed the differential gratuity against which the Bank has gone to the High Court by way of appeal; that in the light of the above developments, they have filed similar claims for differential gratuity in 1994/95 before the third respondent employer under 10 of the Central Rules; that the third respondent neither accepted nor negatived the claim but kept quiet; however, they filed the application for differential gratuity in Form.N within 90 days from the date of their application to the employer claiming differential gratuity; that the bank did not take any step to pay the difference. On such averments, the petitioners have come forward to file this writ petition praying for the relief extracted supra.

3. In the counter filed on behalf of the third respondent in W.P.No.7353 of 1999 he would submit that a single writ petition is not maintainable as each and every petitioner has separate right and the cause of action has arisen on different dat that the applications of the petitioners in Form 'N' were dismissed against which separate appeals were filed by the petitioners and they were also dismissed; that the condoning delay applications were filed for the delay of 4 to 23 years; that the petitioners were not entitled to claim higher amount claimed by them even under paragraph 370 of LAT Award; that the applications have been rightly dismissed as they were filed out of time and that the delay has not been explained properly; that all the petitioners were paid gratuity under the Act; that it is not correct to state that an application can be filed under the Payment of Gratuity Act at any time as per Rule 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Rules,1 972; that admittedly the petitioners have not filed the applications in Form I under Rule 7 with the employer within 30 days of their superannuation and hence, the impugned orders are not vitiated by errors of law.

5. The petitioner would further submit that on coming to know about the developments based on Raju's case, he put in a claim with the State Bank of India, the third respondent herein for the differential gratuity on 27.1.1999; that the third respondent bank neither accepted nor rejected his claim, when he had given reasons for the delay; that when the employer did not send any reply either entertaining the claim or negativing it, he filed an application on 15.2.1999 before the Controlling Authority the second respondent herein in Form 'N', within the period of 90 days as per Rule 10(1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules; that the second respondent by his order dated 9.8 .1999 entertained his claim by condoning the delay; that instead of facing the issue on merits the third respondent has filed an appeal G.A.No.2/1999 under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, against the order of the Controlling Authority, the second respondent herein; that the first respondent Appellate Authority by its order dated 9.2.2000 (Exh.'A') reversed the said decision. Aggrieved by the same, he has come forward to file this writ petition praying to quash the order of the first respondent dated 9.2.2000 and for consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to hear and decide the G.A.No.2/1999 on merits and in accordance with law.

"Plea of Limitation raised by employer cannot be characterised as technical plea and rule 10 prescribing limitation for making application to the Controlling Authority is not ultra vires the rule making power."

19. In the second judgment cited above reported in 1988 Labour Law Notes 126 (MADURA COATS, LTD., TUTITORIN v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, PALAYAMKOTTAI, AND OTHERS) by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court it is held that:

"Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973, does prescribe a time limit for preferring an application of the present nature. When there is a delay in preferring the application, the authority has to condone the delay, on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant. This he must do first. This is the implication of the proviso to rule 10(1) of the rules. The general rule is that every application which has got to be preferred within a time prescribed, therefor, if not so preferred, shall be dismissed as time barred. By virtue of the power conferred on the authority or forum, the question of condonation of delay and thereby entertaining the matter for consideration on merits will arise. If there is no condonation of delay, the main matter does not get entertained for the purpose of consideration on merits."