Blog

To prevent injustice, a reasonable amount of time must be granted to the appellant or the appellant authority to point out the default and also cure the default so the appeal can be heard on merits. This was decreed by the Hon’ble Justice Shri P. Sam Koshy in the case of The Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Shri Anam and ors. [WPL No. 26 of 2021] on the 20^th of July before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur.

The brief facts of the case are, he respondent no.1 was employed by the petitioner on the post of General Mazdoor Category- I. However, in the course of his employment a complaint was received in respect of his getting employment by impersonating himself. Subsequently, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the respondent no.1 was terminated from service vide order dated 30.04.2018. The order of termination from service has not been challenged by the employee before any Court of law. Subsequently, the respondent no.1 preferred an application before the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 11.03.2020 passed an order holding that the respondent no.1 is entitled for payment of gratuity to the tune of Rs.20,00,000. The order of the Controlling Authority was subjected to challenge before the Appellate Authority i.e., the respondent no.3 under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The respondent no.3 vide impugned order dated 28.09.2020 dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner on the ground that the appeal has not been properly constituted as is required under the provisions of Sub Section 7 of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. According to the Appellate Authority, the petitioner was required to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Controlling Authority, and refused to accept a Demand Draft of RS. 1636343/= which was the actual amount of Gratuity the employee would have got had he permitted to be retired, and the appeal thus has been rejected. Aggrieved by this, the present petition has been filed.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that, the quantum arrived at by the Controlling Authority is without any basis and is also without any proper calculation in terms of the entitlement under the Payment of Gratuity Act as per the salary received by the employee under the petitioner. the petitioner company themselves had calculated gratuity amount in accordance with the provisions of law governing the Payment of Gratuity Act upon the petitioner establishment and found that the employee would have been entitled for an amount of Rs.16,36,343. The counsel for the respondent however refutes this argument and claims the payment. The learned judge heard the submissions of both the parties. To answer the whether the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal for want of deposit of the amount quantified by the Controlling Authority to be proper, legal and justified or not, the court relied on section 7 (7) of the Payment of gratuity act. plain perusal of the second proviso to Sub Section 7 of Section 7 would clearly reveal that the statute mandates for the employer to deposit the amount as per Sub Section 4 of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the certificate of the deposited amount be accompanied with the memo of appeal. It was observed that, Once when the dispute is left for the Controlling Authority to be decided and the Controlling Authority passes an order determining the amount of gratuity payable to the employee then under the second proviso to Sub Section 7 of Section 7, the employer should deposit the entire amount awarded by the Controlling Authority. The employer ought to have deposited the entire amount and immediately pressed upon hearing of an appeal or at least an interim application seeking for stay of the disbursement by the Controlling Authority.

The court allowed this writ petition and set aside the order by respondent 3 and decreed, “Given the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking note of the fact that the impugned order of the Appellate Authority does not reveal any opportunity being granted to the petitioner for curing the default. Accordingly, the impugned order Annexure P/1 deserves to be set-aside only on this limited ground of not granting the appellant some reasonable time for curing the default, which is otherwise the condition precedent for entertaining an appeal under Section 7(7) of the P.G. Act. In the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would meet if the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority with a direction to the petitioner to ensure that the entire amount awarded by the Controlling Authority is deposited before the Appellate Authority within a further period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellate Authority shall thereafter consider the appeal on its own merits in accordance with law and decide the same at the earliest.”

Click here to read the judgement.