1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 375 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 376 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 377 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 378 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 379 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 380 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 381 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 382 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 383 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 384 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 385 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 386 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) 2 WITH Writ Petition No. 387 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 388 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 389 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 390 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) WITH Writ Petition No. 391 /2009 (The Manager M/s Kalekhan Mohd. Hanif Bedi Manufacturers VERSUS The Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri B.M. Khan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Mishra, counsel for the R-1 in W.P. Nos.375/09,376/09, 389/09. Mrs. S. Chokhare, counsel for the R-1 & 2 in W.P.Nos.385/09 & 386/09. Mrs. Anjali Joshi, counsel for the R-1 & 2 in W.P. Nos.390/09, 391/09. Shri D.M. Kale, counsel for the R-1 & 2 in W.P. Nos., 381/09, 382/09. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 6, 2009. Since almost identical issues are involved in these writ petitions, they are heard together and are decided by this common order. The respondents/employees were working with the petitioner in the Bidi Industry. The respondents/ employees had worked with the petitioner for about 20 to 25 years. Since the amount of gratuity paid to the employees 3 was extremely meagre and not in accordance with law, applications were filed under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by the respondents along with the application for condonation of delay as there was delay in filing the applications under Section 7(4) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. According to the employees, they were entitled to the difference in amount of gratuity paid to the employees and the one which was payable to them. In most of the applications, separate applications were filed for condonation of delay in filing the applications under Section 7(4) of the Act of 1972 though they were not separately filed with some of the applications. The petitioner denied the claim of the respondent/employees and also sought for the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay. The Controlling Authority under the Act of 1972, however, by separate orders, allowed the applications filed by the employees for condonation of delay in filing the applications under Section 7(4) of the Act of 1972. The petitioner had challenged these orders before the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972. The appellate authority, however, by separate orders, which are also impugned in this petition, dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner as not tenable. The petitioner has impugned 4 both the orders in these petitions and has urged that in case, this Court is not willing to set aside the order passed by the appellate authority on the ground of jurisdiction, the petitioner may be heard and permitted to challenge the orders passed by the controlling authority allowing the applications for condonation of delay and condoning the delay in filing the applications under Section 7(4) of the Act of 1972. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the provisions of the Act of 1972, it is clear that the appeals were not tenable against the orders allowing the applications for condonation of delay as they were not the orders passed by the controlling authority under Section 7(4) of the Act of 1972. The appellate authority was, therefore, justified in rejecting all the appeals on the ground of tenability. In this background, it would now be necessary to consider the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the controlling authority on the applications filed by the respondents/employees for condoning the delay in filing the applications under Section 7(4) of the Act of 1972. Though the delay in most of the cases is inordinate, the controlling authority found that the respondent/employees were poor, 5 illiterate and unorganized and due to this handicap, they were not able to file the applications under Section 7(4) of the Act of 1972 within the prescribed period of limitation. The controlling authority, in fact, considered the relevant case law on the subject in detail and also heard the learned counsel for the parties at length before allowing the applications for condoning the delay in filing the applications under Section 7(4) of the Act of 1972. The controlling authority found that the delay caused in filing the applications under Section 7(4) of the Act of 1972 was not deliberate or intentional nor was it caused due to the negligence of the respondents but, the same resulted due to poverty and ignorance. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the controlling authority ought to have rejected the applications on the ground that the controlling authority did not have jurisdiction to entertain the applications under Section 7(4) of the Act of 1972 and the employees had consented to accept the amount of gratuity paid to them is liable to be rejected as these submissions pertain to the merits of the matter and these factors cannot be considered while considering the applications for condonation of delay in filing the applications under Section 7(4) of the Act. Moreover, in the peculiar facts of the case, it 6 would not be in the interest of justice to set aside the orders passed by the controlling authority for any reason whatsoever, as the applications under Section 7(4) of the Act of 1972 were prosecuted before the controlling authority during the pendency of the appeals as also these petitions and the matters are at the stage of rendering a decision on the same. In such circumstances, it would not be in the fitness of things to set aside the impugned orders passed by the controlling authority, specially when they do not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The judgment reported in 2002 (1) Current Labour Reports 671 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, cannot be made applicable to the facts of these cases. In the result, the petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE