1-11 R ifr: <^:=>: .vx ^l O.ffl :i»:to,: l^ Ifffl): ^iBBiEl' v.l'f£w:; t^i^ :';itB^^: ^ll^ ^w^:. ^St^ ^i% 'ii. '•^ffi &S iS •::.;i-'vw Si •°^^:1 R— V-'vS « .u^ -(6^ d> a:•e: w , ro^B vssa^ 'fl'Nf"; ,•;.;%(]>', ,;^a>;il-J! ^i£<ii'®' :l^s» ws^ ^j§%:s>?? efw?'':' 1'<'1-1!W; s:- '0' ;;lK^ii)I&i: '^iiffi,' i."*y>5^^'i'~'- i'B®*^ :?^t)l:;;;^ ^l-l-;;'"(Il,.l ;IT^^"'''^\.i;"^ (-•••6) <t':%'i^l .-III •10';.; .nl-': :%l«>!:-fci:. cs''w^. ^^.^.(^r •••SWi-': '>i3>: . i 'SSaW. :l-f>»l'<»i;: •Q,s!-'":^!te. •'tt:MiB'1 f^i .'te-Q' 'Fa.tt^i, tii.SI-.h- :I:.j.«;^f<-. Ws^' i'S/ S W -K: ^'{St'C.^^ %S6<.:::G1-:- :,m.3tt,, B>'1' Bi '"; "'f'.:: ;:®,.|3-;. ^::^>?:H>'^ ^u "a^i^Sfi ^KSS^ i^iS:);t-j"!-' 'X.SSS'Ksf' .l:..;'wi..»-BiS3"jS.«^' ISKSKt ^fa@;Bi'J'a^:S ^i^^^^i^^^ '•+-I^'w.:?>^'y:%: .iwSS^s'ss^w^ S^sK'S'^W^ •':*^"a'';S!!':c-iig,;,9^ ;Bis8^iN"SS (t»"^.a:Rii ^'-^^esssst-KH' !'j''».::3l)::W': ^i:&i,K^(--ff, S:-.^t6v~^- ^SQ'^'Xs'i':^^-^': 'W8M3SS1 '^t^'-S'sfKSSSi :,;:;:1 ^<;;%^ ^;'-;mpi-tir;%: ;^..'^2.tSSI-ifi: '^Sf-t iS 3 R^S WWlW Eia y^ (^^ ^®yy ^'^ MIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 733 of 2000 VERSUS Factory Manager, Orient Paper The Controlling Authority under the payment of gratuity Act, Rajnandgaon and others. l^. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.B. Agrawa! learned Sr. Counsel with Smt Jaiswal for the respondents. IT PETITEON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OR D E R (13.Q7.2009) Chailenge in the present petition is to the order dated 25.8.1998 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Controlling Authority (RespondentNo.1), order dated 27.10.1999 (Annexure P-7) passed by the appellate authority (respondent No.2) and order dated 1.12.1999 (Annexure P-9) passed by the appeiiate authority (respondent No.2). 2. By order dated 25.8.1998 the Controiling Authority aliowed the Original Application fiied by respondent No.3 under Sections 4 and 7 read with Rule 10 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (forshort the "Gratuity Act"). Vide order dated 27.10.1999 the appellate authority under the Gratuity Act dismissed the case of the petitioner for want of prosecution whereas vide order dated 1.12.1999 review appiication filed by him was also dismissed. 3. Facts of the case in brief sre that on 28.3.1998 an application was fiied by respondent No.3 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 4 and 7'read with Rule 10 of the Gratuifry Act claiming gratuity from the petitioner. Vide order dated 25.8.1998 (Annexure P-4) the \\ ^ ^, Controlling Authority allowed theapplication filed by respondent No. 3and djrected that anamount of Rs. 53,074.80 be paid to respondent No.3 aibng with interest. On 24.10.1998 this order ofthe controiling authority was challenged before the appetlate authority by way of appeal under Section 7(3) of the Gratuity Act. After hearing the appea! on various dates the appealwas dismissed for want of prosecution on 27.10.1999. Thereafter, the pefitioner filed a review application (Annexure P-8) under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 11 (5) of the Payment of Gratuity Rules. This review apptication was ateo dismissed by the Appeilate Authority vide order dated 1 . 12.1999. 9 4. Contention of the counse! for the petitioner is that after filing the appeal, counsel for the petitioner was. regularly attending the Court except for few dates. He further submits that on most of the occasions it is the respondent No.3 and his counsel who remained absent. Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the order sheets dated 17.5.1999, 9.6.99, 12.7.1999 and 9.8.1999. He submits that on all these dates the counsel for the petitioner was present but the respondent No.3 and his counsel remained absent. He submits that on 12.10.1999 when the appeal was listed before the appellate authority the Court was duly informed telephonically by the eounsel that he was not we!i and therefore a date may be given to him. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for 27.10.1999but no information whatsoever was given to the petitioner or his counsel about fixing the date as 27.10.1S99and therefore nobody was present for the petitioner and the Court in an illegal manner dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order sheets show that on most of the occasions it is respondent No.3 v/ho was at fault and it isoniy once due to illness of the petitioner's counsel, none could appear for it and unfortunately the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. He further submits that in the review application ,ateo counsel for the petitioner had given an affidavit | dearly indtcating that on account his iilness-he couid not remainpre&ent on /' 'l ^ -3- • 12.10.1999 and further that no information was given tothe counsel or the petitioner in respect of fixing the dateas 27.10.1999and under these circumstances the review of the order was sought. He submits that in a mechanical manner review application has also been dismissed though the appellate authority was under obligation to decide the reviewapplication by a speaking and reasoned order. He submits that in all fairness theappellate authority should have decided the appea! on merits rather than taking a harsh step of dismissing the appeai for want of prosecution. Lastiy he submits that interpretation of question of law is iri<61ved in the case whether the teachers are entitled for gratuity under the Gratuity Act or nof and according to him this point has already been adjudicated by the Apex Court. ^•^ " 6. Counsel for the respondents submits that when the iawyer was absent and no representation was made on behalf of the petitioner, the Court had no other option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. He also justified the order passed by the appellate authority in the review application. 7. The order sheets of the appeilate authority make it clear that on most oftheoccasions it is respondent No.3 and his counsei who were not attending the Court and it is oniy on 12.10.1999, the counse! for the petitioner could not attend the Court on account of his illness. Further, the information regarding iilness was duly given to the Court and the Court has also recorded thesame in the order sheet. Moreover, the review application was also supported by the affidavit of the counsel and therefore instead of dismissing the review, the Court below ought to have decided the appeal on merite. 8. Considering the totality of the facts,order dated 27.10.1999 ^, (Annexure P-7) and order dated 1.12.1999 (Annexure P-9) passed \ by the appellate authority are setaside. Case is remanded to the appellate authority with a direction to decide the appeal on merits. Petjtioner and respondent No.3 are directed to remain present before the appeliate authority i.e. Labour Commissioner, Raipur, on e^y^. -tf - ^*^: 18.8.2009. So faras order dated 25.8.1998 is concerned, the same can not be setaside by this Court as the matter is beingremitted to the appeliate authority for being decided by it on merifc 1 9. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker U^tiUiil