Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In the second judgment cited above a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has held :

"Payment of Gratuity Act being a social welfare legislation, workman cannot be deprived gratuity on account of late filing of application by workman and exercise of discretion in condoning delay is just and proper."

10. In the third judgment cited above, a Division Bench of the A.P. High Court has held:

"regarding the claim for gratuity the Rules prescribing for limitation are only procedural and do not intend to extinguish right of employee and moreover when employer has benefited itself by money belonging to employees cannot resist claim on technical plea of limitation."

"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."

28. In the second judgment the Delhi High Court reported in 1993(1) LLN 129 (supra) it would also hold in the form of sermons that Payment of Gratuity Act being a social welfare Legislation, workmen cannot be deprived gratuity on account of late filing of application.

29. In the third judgment of the Division Bench of the A.P.High Court reported in 1996 LIC 2765 (supra) would dub the rules prescribing limitation are procedural and do not intend to extinguish right of an employee and when employer has benefited itself by money belonging to employees cannot resist claim on technical plea of limitation.

32. On the other hand on the part of the respondents also some judgments would be cited for the point of limitation. In the first judgment reported in 1987 LAB I.C.931 (supra) it has been held as an answer to one of the judgments cited earlier holding that the plea of limitation cannot be characterised as a technical plea and Rule 10 is not ultra vires of the Act.

33. In the second judgment reported in 1988 II LLN 126 (supra) the Court would hold that when there is a delay the authority has to condone the delay on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant. This he must do first; that the general rule is that any application which has not been filed in time shall be dismissed as time barred; that by virtue of the power conferred on the authority, the question of condonation of delay has to be considered on merit. If there is no condonation of delay, the main matter does not get entertained for the purpose of consideration on merits.