IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5280 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- MANHARSINH RATANSINH Versus SARANGPUR COTTON MILLS LTD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 5280 of 1990 MR KN PATEL for Petitioner No. 1 MR BR SHAH for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI Date of decision: 24/08/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1.0. The petitioner herein has challenged the judgment and order of the Controlling Authority dated 31st December, 1988 at annexure-A to the petition, which was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 29th July, 1989 at annexure-B to the petition. 2.0. The petitioner was working with the respondent-mill since 1st January, 1961. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-mill was closed on 14th July, 1984, and under Gujarat Closed Textile Undertaking (Nationalization) Act, 1986 the said mill was nationalised. It is case of the petitioner that thereafter he voluntarily resigned on 31st August, 1986. After having resigned from the service, he preferred an application before the Controlling Authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on 1st March, 1988 for the payment of gratuity of Rs.10,484=37. The said application was dismissed by the Controlling Authority on the ground of limitation vide order dated 31st December, 1988 (annexure-A). 2.1. Being aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority at Ahmedabad. The same was also dismissed vide order date 29th July, 1989. Hence, this petition. 2.2 Mr. K.N. Patel learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no prescribed time limit for preferring an appeal. However, under Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, the prescribed time limit for preferring an appeal is sixty days and the authority has power to condone the delay, provided an application for condonation of delay is made within stipulated time. But, in the present case, no application for condonation of delay is made and, therefore, both the authorities have rightly rejected the application. 2.3. Mr. Patel further contented that the Appellate Authority who had decided the matter namely Mr. M.V. Jadeja was also holding the charge of the Controlling Authority when he preferred an appeal. It may be noted that in absence of the Controlling Authority, day to day powers might have been conferred upon the Appellate Authority, but as per the record, the original order of the Controlling Authority was passed by one Shri R.S. Lavau. Therefore, merely because such powers are conferred upon the Appellate Authority, the order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be quashed and set aside. 2.4. Mr. Patel further contended that under Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, no gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Rules made thereunder shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court. However, in the present case, no such question has been raised before any of the authorities. 2.5. Mr. Patel also contended that in view of 2-P settlement between the Mill and the Textile Labour Association, where the name of the petitioner is reflected, his right may be protected in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity, Act. However, this Court is not examining whether 2-P settlement is entered between the Mill and the Association or not, but if such settlement is entered between the parties, the right of the petitioner will be protected under Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 3.0. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no error apparent on the face of the record or any illegality is committed by both the authorities. I find no merit in this petition. Hence, it is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/