AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—These writ petitions arise out of the order of the first respondent, dated January 2, 2001, in P.O. Appeals Nos.
27 of 1998 to 43 of 1998. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petitions can be traced as under.
There was a dispute as regards the non-employment of the third respondent in each of the writ petitions which came to be adjudicated by
Justice Sri Natarajan, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court as a sole arbitrator. It is common ground that the non-employment arose some time in
the year 1975. The learned arbitrator gave his award on March 23, 1994. In the said arbitration award, the learned arbitrator reached a
conclusion that the non-employment of the 17 workmen was not justified. Thereafter, he granted the relief of compensation both towards back-
wages, as well as, in lieu of reinstatement. Subsequently, based on the said arbitration award, the: concerned 17 workmen were stated to have
preferred their respective applications before the second respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act in P.O. Case Nos. 96 to 111 of 1996 and
208 of 1996 on the footing that they should be deemed to have been ""in service till the date of arbitration award, viz., March 23, 1994."" By a
common order, dated July 30, 1997, all the abovesaid P.O. Applications were ordered computing the gratuity payable to the 17 workmen based
on the respective last drawn wages. While the concerned 17 workmen preferred Appeals in P.G.A.Nos. 27 to 43 of 1998 before the first
respondent, challenging that part of the order of the second respondent in holding that the gratuity would be calculated based on the last drawn
wages, the petitioner came forward with W.P. Nos. 19504 to 19520 of 1997 before this Court, contending that the concerned Presiding Officer
who signed the order, dated July 30, 1907, herself lacked jurisdiction as on the date of the order, viz., July 30, 1997, as she ceased to be the
controlling authority on that date.
Be that as it may, it, is stated that the petitioner also filed regular appeals under the Payment of Gratuity Act as against the order, dated July 30,
1997, without depositing the gratuity amount computed by the second respondent. Since the appeals were not numbered on the ground of non
deposit of the gratuity amount as ordered by the second respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 2824 of 1998 before this Court challenging the
correctness of the stand of the second respondent in not numbering the appeals without making the deposit.
Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner now states that the said W.P.No. 2824 of 1998 was disposed of on February
20, 2003 rejecting the petitioner''s stand and that the petitioner has now deposited the amounts as computed by the second respondent in
P.G.A.Nos.96 to 111 of 1996 and 208 of 1996 in its order dated July 30, 1997.
The present writ petitions relate to the order passed by the first respondent in P.G.A. Nos. 27 to 43 of 1998, wherein, the first respondent
reached a conclusion that the said 17 workmen should be treated as ""be on continuous service till the date of arbitration award, dated March 23,
1994,"" and that they were entitled to all the attendant benefits including gratuity. In the present order, dated January 2, 2001, the first respondent
held that his earlier ex parte order, dated March 23, 2000, would hold good.
In fact, earlier the whole lot of P.G. Appeal Nos.27 to 43 of 1998 were disposed of by the first respondent by way of an ex parte order, dated
March 23, 2000, wherein, the first respondent took the view that gratuity payable to the 17 workmen should be on the basis of the minimum
wages payable to them. As the said order was passed ex parte, the petitioner filled an interlocutory application to set aside that order. Though
initially that application was resisted on behalf of the concerned 17 workmen, on September 14, 2000 on the basis of no objection expressed on
behalf of the 17 workmen, the said interlocutory application was allowed and thereby the earlier ex parte order, dated March 23, 2000, passed by
the first respondent came to be set aside. This position is thus clear from what has been stated by the first respondent himself in the present order,
dated January 2, 2001, which has been impugned in the writ petitions, which is to the following effect:
This case was posted for hearing on various dates and when this case was taken on September 14, 2000, the respondent in I.A. agreed to
allow the interlocutory application and it was allowed.
Then the main appeal was restored and it was heard on various dates and finally on December 4, 2000, the appellants were represented by their
Authorised Representative Sri R.C. Paul and the Respondents were represented by their counsel Sri M.R. Krishnakumar.
The first respondent thereafter reached a conclusion in the order impugned in these writ petitions by stating that he was of the opinion that all the
employees should be treated to be in continuous service till the date of award, dated March 23, 1994, and that they are entitled for all the
attendant benefits including gratuity by stating that his earlier order, dated March 23, 2000, would hold good.
Having considered the above factors, and on hearing the counsel for the respective parties, I am of the view that the order impugned in the writ
petitions cannot be sustained for more than one reason. In the first place, the 17 workmen should be treated to be as on continuous service till the
date of award, dared March 23, 1994, is beyond the scope of appeal preferred by the concerned 17 workmen in which that question could not
have been gone into at all because those appeals were preferred by the 17 workmen so far as it related to the question whether the gratuity should
be computed on the basis of their respective last drawn wages or on the basis of wages payable to them as on the date of award namely, March
23, 1994. That question may validly arise for consideration in the appeals preferred by the petitioner which are yet to be numbered. In fact, the
petitioner''s appeals as against the order of the second respondent in P. G. Case Nos. 96 to 111 of 1996 are very much pending by way of
independent appeals preferred by the petitioners which were yet to be taken on record after the disposal of W.P.No. 2824 of 1998. In such a
situation when the appeals preferred by the petitioner are still pending as on date, the statement made by the first respondent in the order impugned
the writ petitions being outside the scope of the appeals, the same cannot be allowed to stand. That apart, his further conclusion that the 17
workmen were entitled for all the attendant benefits including gratuity as well and that his earlier order, dated March 23, 2000, will hold good is
again a conclusion which cannot be sustained. After the categoric pronouncement made by the first respondent in their present order dated January
2, 2001, to the effect that the petitioner''s I.A. stood allowed, the earlier order, dated March 23, 2000, loses its value, and there is no scope for
the first respondent again to call it in an order at all. In other words, when once the ex parte order, dated March 23, 2000, was set aside, then the
said order would cease to exist. To put it differently, that order got extinguished once and for all. In the order, dated March 23, 2000, the first
respondent held that gratuity should be worked out on the basis of minimum wages, which conclusion was reached without any basis or reasoning.
When the parties went before the first respondent, taking their respective stand, the minimum that is expected of the first respondent is to
consider the respective submissions and give his reasoning as to why either this or that of the stand taken by the parties merits acceptance. The first
respondent being quasi-judicial authority is bound to analyse the legal as well as factual matrix of the whole controversy threadbare and state his
reasoning for the acceptance of the stand of either of the parties. This is the basic requirement of an authority discharging his quasi-judicial function.
A reading of the order impugned in the writ petitions, discloses that the first respondent has not applied his mind at all to any of the submissions
made by the respective parties. Such an abrupt conclusion made by him in the last part of the impugned order itself is sufficient to set aside the
order impugned in the writ petition. That apart, since as of now the petitioner''s appeals are also to be considered on merits, inasmuch as, after the
disposal of W.P.No. 2824 of 1998, the petitioner having deposited the gratuity computed by the second respondent, and those appeals preferred
by the petitioner having been preferred against the very same order of the second respondent, dated July 30, 1997, the first respondent can be
directed to dispose of those appeals also along with the appeals preferred by the 17 workmen.
Along with these appeals, it is stated that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order passed in P.G. No. 196 of 1998 concerning
one other employee, namely, Sri R. Mani, who is also one among the 17 workmen. In respect of the said employee, though the petitioner came
forward with Writ Petition No. 15022 of 1999 taking the stand that the appeal preferred by the petitioner can be entertained without any deposit
being made, the said writ petition was not entertained and the same came to be dismissed by this Court on September 22, 1999. When the
petitioner preferred W.A.No. 2269 of 1999, a direction came to be made directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,134 in this Registry.
Though the petitioner did not comply with the said direction initially, after getting extension of time in the order, dated June 22, 2000 from the First
Bench of this Court, it is stated that the petitioner has deposited the sum of Rs. 22,134 on June 26, 2000. In such circumstances, since the said
employee, namely, Sri R. Mani, is also similarly placed like that of the other workmen, the appeal preferred by the petitioner as against
P.G.No.196 of 1998 also be clubbed along with other appeals.
In the above stated circumstances, I feel that the first respondent can be directed to pass a comprehensive order in the appeals preferred by
the petitioner as well as the 17workmen, including the appeal against P.G. No. 196 of 1998 as stated above, by considering all aspects including
the question whether the award, dated March 23, 1994 would entail the 17 workmen to claim gratuity based on the minimum wages applicable or
based on the wages payable to them as on the date of the arbitration award or as to whether gratuity is payable at all to them as contended by the
petitioner in its appeals.
With that view, while setting aside the order impugned in this writ petition, the first respondent is directed to take on record the present appeals
in P.G.A. Nos.27 to 43 of 1998 including the appeal filed against P.G.No. 196 of 1998 and also the appeals preferred by the petitioners which
are yet to be numbered after the deposit having been made by the petitioner pursuant to the disposal of W.P.No.2824 of 1998, and pass orders in
accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving due notice to all the parties concerned.
The writ petitions are allowed with the above direction as to the disposal of the appeals preferred by. the petitioner as well as 17 workmen.
No costs. Consequently, W.M.Ps. are closed.
The Registry is directed to send the records within one week from today.