Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.06.25 10:54:35 +0530 2025:CGHC:26048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 107 of 2025 Jai Balaji Industries Limited Registered Office, 5 Bentinck Street Kolkata 700001 (West Bengal ) And Factory Place At Industrial Growth Centre Borai Rasmada, District - Durg (C.G.) - 491009, Through Authorized Authority Sudhir Joshi S/o Late Shri Madhukar Joshi Aged About 60 Years Working For Gain At Jai Balaji Industries Limited Borai Industrial Growth Centre Rasmada , District - Durg (C.G.) - 491009 --- Petitioner(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1. Kumar Lahre S/o Shri Late Judavan Lahre Aged About 56 Years R/o Village And Post Rasmada, District- Durg (C.G.) 2. Shri Padmini Dhruve M/s Kumar Undertaking C/o Jai Balaji Industries Pvt. Ltd Rasmada Industrial Growth Centre Rasmada District - Durg (C.G.) 3. The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act. 1972 And Assistant Labour Commissione Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 110 of 2025 Jai Balaji Industries Limited Registered Office - 5, Bentick Street Kolkata - 700001 (West Bengal) And Factory Place At Industrial Growth Centre Borai, Rasmada, District Durg Chhattisgarh 491009, Through Authorized Authority Sudhir Joshi, S/o Late Shri Madhukar Joshi, Aged About 60 Years, Working For Gain At Jai Balaji Industries Limited, Borai Industrial Growth Centre, Rasmada, District Durg Chhattisgarh - 491009 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Moolchand Sahu S/o Shri Dhasiya Ram Aged About 59 Years R/o Village 2 And Post - Joratarai, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2. Shri Padmini Dhurve M/s Kumar Undertaking, C/o Jai Balaji Industries Pvt. Ltd. Rasmada Industrial Growth Centre, Rasmada District - Durg Chhattisgarh 3. The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg, Distt - Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 109 of 2025 Jai Balaji Industries Limited, Registered Office- 5, Bentinck Street Kolkata- 700001 (West Bengal) And Factory Place At Industrial Growth Centre Borai, Rasmada, District Durg (C.G.)- 491009, Through Authorized Authority Sudhir Joshi, Son Of Late Shri Madhukar Joshi, Aged About 60 Years, Working For Gain At Jai Balaji Industries Limited, Borai Industrial Growth Centre, Rasmada, District Durg (C.G.) 491009 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Ram Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Dashrat Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village And Post- Rasmada, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2. Shri Padmini Dhurve M/s Kumar Undertaking, C/o. Jai Balaji Industries Pvt. Ltd, Rasmada Industrial Growth Cenre, Rasmada District- Durg (C.G.) 3. The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 And Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 108 of 2025 Jai Balaji Industries Limited, Registered Office - 5, Bentinck Street Kolkata- 700001 (West Bengal) And Factory Place At Industrial Growth Centre Borai, Rasmada, District- Durg (C.G.) - 491009, Through - Authorized Authority Sudhir Joshi, Son Of Late Shri Madhukar Joshi, Aged About 60 Years, Working For Gain At Jai Balaji Industries Limited, Borai Industrial Growth Centre, Rasmada, District- Durg (C.G.)-491009 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Samaru Sahu S/o Shri Chandra Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post- Rasmada, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) 3 2. Shri Padmini Dhurve M/s Kumar Undertaing, C/o. Jai Balaji Industries Pvt. Ltd, Rasmada Industrial Growth Centre, Rasmada, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) 3. The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Assistant Labour Commissioner Durg (Chhattisgarh) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For State : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General along with Ms. Shailja Shukla, and Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20. 06.2025 1. The above captioned Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and
Decision
facts therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.03.2025 (in all petitions) passed by the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”), whereby, the petitioner was directed to pay gratuity to the private respondents. 3. Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that:- a) The petitioner is not an employer of the employees, who moved applications before the Controlling Authority, b) The order impugned was passed ex-parte and there was no service of summons. c) The application moved under Section 11 (5) of the C.G. Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 (for short “Rules, 1973”) has not been considered and decided by the learned Controlling Authority. 4 4. He would further submit that applications under the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Rules, 1973 were moved in all cases and those applications have not been decided by the learned Controlling Authority. He would also submit that a direction may be issued to the learned Controlling Authority to decide the pending applications on merits and strictly in accordance with the law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General would submit that final orders have already been passed in all cases by the Controlling Authority and the petitioner has a remedy to prefer appeals before the appellate authority under the provisions of the Rules, 1973. He would further submit that the petitioner may raise all available grounds in appeals. He would contend that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. Perusal of the orders impugned would show that final orders have been passed in all cases by the Controlling Authority on 07.03.2025 under the Rules, 1973. It appears that ex-parte orders were passed; therefore, the petitioner moved applications for setting-aside ex-parte orders in all cases and those applications have not been decided by the Controlling Authority. 8. Taking into consideration the limited issue involved in these cases, all writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the learned Controlling Authority to decide the pending applications moved by the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 1973 strictly in accordance with the law. 5 9. The petitioner would be at liberty to move applications for the grant of stay before the Controlling Authority and the Controlling Authority shall decide the applications for the grant of stay within a period of 60 days. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petitions are hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant