Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 7 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002
21.In Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan
Sao & Others, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 195, the Supreme Court, in
paragraph 12, held that the expression “sufficient cause” for condoning delay
must be interpreted liberally, and that there can be no rigid or straightjacket
formula for determining its applicability. The Court observed as follows:—
17/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
W.P.Nos.25310 & 25314 of 2021
“Thus it becomes plain that the expression "sufficient cause"
Section 5 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Sadananda Halo & Others vs Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Others on 27 February, 2008
10.Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh, reported in (2008)
4 SCC 619, which arose under service jurisprudence. In support of his
contention, he referred to and relied upon the following observations found in
paragraphs 62 and 64 of the judgment:—
“ ……We have already shown in the earlier part of our judgment
that there were proper advertisements issued and reasonable
procedure was chalked out in the earlier meetings held by the
authorities, even the guidelines were defined and the interviews
10/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
W.P.Nos.25310 & 25314 of 2021
proceeded along those guidelines. A mere expression of doubts
only on the ground of large number of candidates appearing and
their not being objectively and properly tested without any further
material, in our opinion, cannot by itself render the whole selection
process illegal.”
“The Division Bench thus could not have condoned the non supply
of copy of the writ petitions prior to the hearing of the writ
petitions before the learned Single Judge. Similarly, after having
noticed that the notice issued by the learned Single Judge was
vague and that the impleaded selected candidates were constantly
crying for the copies of the writ petitions, the Division Bench
could not have simply brushed aside those weighty objections. We
also do not understand the alleged stand taken by the counsel for
the selected candidates before Division Bench regarding their
readiness to argue. It is for this reason that we have extensively
quoted the arguments by the counsel in paras 19 to 22 of this
judgment where the non supply of copies of petitions was
criticised.”
The Management Of Melur Co-Operative ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Labour ... on 14 November, 2003
20.In Rasipuram Co-operative Urban Bank Limited v. The Authority
under the Payment of Gratuity Act / Assistant Commissioner of Labour &
Others, reported in (2016) 1 MAD CK 36, this Court, in paragraph 8, referred
to a judgment of the Supreme Court while explaining the concept of “sufficient
cause” for condoning delay in filing an application.
Madanlal vs Shyamlal on 9 November, 2001
The relevant portion reads
as follows:—
“The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj referred to
supra, summarises the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court interpreting the expression 'Sufficient Cause', taking note
of the decisions in the case of Madanlal V. Shyamlal reported in
(2002) 1 SCC 535 and Ram Nath Sao V. Gobardhan Sao reported
in (2002) 3 SCC 195. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out
that there can be no straitjacket formula in such cases and each
case has to be decided on its facts. Therefore, to throw out an
application on the ground of limitation, it has to be established
that there was gross negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides and
unless any one of these factors are established, an application
cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation.”
Section 15 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
K.P.Backiasamy vs The Appellate Authority on 21 November, 2007
22.In the foregoing circumstances, this Court finds no illegality in the
18/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )
W.P.Nos.25310 & 25314 of 2021
orders passed by the Controlling Authority in condoning the delay in the
applications filed by the contesting respondents. In view of the said orders, the
two interim applications filed by the petitioner in each of the P.G. Cases are
held to be vexatious and are liable to be rejected. The petitioner cannot evade
adjudication on the merits, particularly when substantial amounts claimed as
gratuity have been forfeited without proper justification. Accordingly, both writ
petitions stand dismissed. The Controlling Authority is at liberty to proceed
with the adjudication of the gratuity claims in P.G. Case Nos. 96/2019 and
95/2019, after issuing notice to both parties and disposing of the cases on their
merits. The petitioner is directed to file its counter within a period of four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Deputy Commissioner of
Labour (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,
Chennai-6) is directed to complete the adjudication and pass appropriate orders
within three (3) months thereafter. All connected miscellaneous petitions stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1