IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4365 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.S.VIKRAMAN,S/O.R.SANKARAN, MANAGING PARTNER OF JAYASREE TRAVELS & TOURS COMPANY,P.O BOX NO.5236,PETTAH P.O,KOLLAM. REP.THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY G.SURESH KUMAR, S/O.GANGADHARAN,G.M,JAYASREE TRAVELS,R/AT KARTHIK, TARA-106,THAMPURAM MUKKU,KUNNUKUZHI,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. CONTROLLING AUTHOIRTY, DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICE,THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 2. KUMAR M, T.C 41/516,CHITTADATH VEEDU,KURIATHI, MANALAND P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 4392 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NOs. 4365 & 4392 OF 2009 ======================= Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in these writ petitions is against Ext.P4, orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, declaring the petitioner exparte and ordering payment of gratuity due. It would appear that the petitioner herein filed Ext.P5 applications to get the exparte orders set aside along with the application for condonation of delay and also for stay of the further proceedings pursuant to the exparte order, pending orders on the application for setting aside the same. The writ petitions were filed contending that during the pendency of the aforesaid applications, which are marked as Exts.P5, P6 and P7 in these cases, steps are being taken for recovery of the amount due under the exparte orders referred to above. 2. However, the 2nd respondent in these cases, the workmen concerned, raised the contention that in the absence of any provision in the Act for setting aside an exparte order, these applications are not maintainable and therefore the petitioner cannot seek any order. 3. True, there is no provision contained in the statute, in the absence of which, this Court will not be justified in directing consideration WPC 4365 & 4392/09 :2 : of the applications which does not have the support of any statutory power. Therefore, the remedy available to the petitioner was to take recourse to the appellate remedies that are available in the Act. However, appeal should have been filed within 60 days of the order and the maximum permissible period for condonation of delay is a further period of 60 days as provided in proviso to Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. By now, even the permissible period for condonation of delay also has expired. 4. However, from the facts as noticed above, it is evident that the petitioner in all bonafides was prosecuting the application for setting aside the exparte order, which application was filed by him on 1/1/2009. 5. Therefore, I direct that if the petitioner files an appeal within one week from today, the same will be treated as having filed on 1/1/2009 and on that basis, if he seeks condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the same will be considered and orders passed by the Appellate Authority. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp