Sri Simhadri Kali Prasada Rao v. Srikakulam District & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 26 Nov 2009
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to entertain the appeals on compliance with the
Provisions considered
- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 s. 7(7)
Judgment
Sri Simhadri Kali Prasada Rao … Petitioner And
Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tekkali, Srikakulam District and others. … Respondents ORDER : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.25646 OF 2009 This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour – Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Tekkali, Srikakulam District in entertaining the applications filed by the respondents 3 to 9 herein for payment of gratuity allegedly due from the writ petitioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondents 3 to 9, who have not completed the minimum five years of continuous service are not eligible to receive gratuity. It is to be noticed that the petitioner appeared before the Controlling Authority under the Act and filed counters opposing the applications moved by the respondents 3 to 9 and thereafter final orders were passed on
Operative part
28.5.2009 determining the gratuity payable to the applicants. As against the said orders, a remedy of appeal is available under Section 7 (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner states that though such appeals have been preferred, they were returned by the appellate authority with an objection as to the maintainability of the appeal observing that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour were interim in nature. On the face of it, the objection raised by the appellate authority is untenable since the Assistant Commissioner of Labour – Controlling Authority under the Act having determined the liability of the writ petitioner passed orders under Section 7 (4) (c) of the Act. Against the said orders, the appeals are maintainable subject to depositing the determined amount in compliance with the requirement of the 2nd proviso to Section 7 (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Accordingly, objection No.1 raised by the 2nd respondent – Appellate Authority is hereby overruled and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to entertain the appeals on compliance with the requirement of the proviso to Section 7 (7) of the Act. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 26.11.2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to entertain the appeals on compliance with the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — s. 7(7).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 26 Nov 2009. The bench was G ROHINI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.