AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—This Writ Appeal arises out of the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD). No. 10782 of 2008, dated 12.07.2010, whereby, the learned single Judge declined to quash the order passed in C.P. No. 75 of 1999 directing the Appellant/President of Pallapatti Panchayat to pay family benefit fund of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the first Respondent, as per the various Government Orders.
The husband of the first Respondent was working in Pallapatti Panchayat and he was engaged to pump the water to the tank and distribute the same to the villages. The husband of the first Respondent died in harness and therefore, the first Respondent claimed family benefit of Rs. 1,00,000/- as per the various Government Orders. Since the same was not paid to her, the first Respondent filed C.P. No. 75 of 1999 u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act against the Appellant/President of Pallapatti Panchayat. In the said claim petition, an ex-parte order was passed on 04.08.2000.
Challenging the said order passed in C.P. No. 75 of 1999, the Appellant/President of Pallapatti Panchayat has filed Writ Petition in W.P.(MD). No. 10782 of 2008. According to the Appellant, the first Respondent''s husband paid salary only on consolidated basis and there was no deduction made in the payment made to the first Respondent''s husband and the deceased employee has not contributed any amount to the Government towards family benefit scheme and hence, the first Respondent is not entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards family benefit scheme and without appreciating the same, the Labour Court has passed an award directing the Appellant to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-.
The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the award passed in C.P. No. 75 of 1999 on 04.08.2000 and thereafter, the District Administration has also issued a direction for taking action to pay the amount and while so, the order passed in C.P. No. 75 of 1999 cannot be challenged nearly after eight years. The writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground of latches and delay.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. K. Balasubramanian, has submitted that as per G.O. No. 326, Finance (Pension) Deprtment, dated 23.6.1997, the benefit of group insurance is extended for the employees of village panchayat only with effect from 1.7.1997 whereas the first Respondent died on 18.5.1997 i.e. prior to the passing of the said G.O., and therefore, the benefit of the said G.O. cannot be extended to the first Respondent''s husband. It was further submitted that the very same G.O. stipulates that a sum of Rs. 10/- has to be deducted from the consolidated pay to the first Respondent''s husband whereas no such deduction was made since the first Respondent''s husband died on 18.5.1997 prior to the passing of the G.O., and retrospective effect cannot be given to implement the G.O.,. It was further submitted that without keeping in view G.O. No. 326, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.6.1997, ex-parte order was passed in C.P. No. 75 of 1999 and the same cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel further submitted that in, any event, the learned single Judge ought to have given an opportunity to the Appellant and ought to have dismissed the Writ Petition on the sole ground of delay and laches.
We have heard Mr. S. Viswalingam, learned Counsel for the first Respondent.
The learned Counsel for the first Respondent has submitted that inspite of several opportunities, the Appellant - panchayat has not contested C.P. No. 75 of 1999. The learned Counsel has drawn to our attention G.O.D. No. 1518, Labour and Employment Department dated 20.12.2004 whereby certificate was issued u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the District Collector, Dindigul. The learned Counsel has also brought to our notice the proceedings of the Assistant Director (Village Panchayats) in Na. Ka. No. 4864/2010/A3 dated 19.11.2000 and Sub-Divisional Officer (Village Panchayats) in Na. Ka. No. 3727/08/C2 dated 18.11.2010 to the effect that directions had been issued to the Panchayat President/Appellant to satisfy the award.
We have perused the records and considered the rival submissions.
Of course, the first Respondent''s husband died on 18.5.1997 prior to the passing of G.O. No. 326, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.6.1997. Of course, as contemplated under G.O. No. 326, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.6.1997, no deduction had been made from the consolidated pay to the first Respondent''s husband. But the contention of the Appellant Panchayat regarding the applicability, the G.O. No. 36, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.6.1997, ought to have been raised in C.P. No. 75 of 1999 itself. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the order in C.P. No. 75 of 1999 came to be passed on 4.8.2000, and for about eight years, the Appellant Panchayat has not chosen to challenge the same. In the mean time, by virtue of G.O.D. No. 1518, Labour and Employment Department dated 20.12.2004, certificate was issued u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the District Collector, Dindigul for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). Only four years thereafter, the Appellant Panchayat has filed the Writ Petition challenging the order passed in C.P. No. 75 of 1999. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, since no steps were taken by the Appellant to challenge the award passed in C.P. No. 75 of 1999 and having allowed the matter to lapse for more than eight years, it is not open to the Appellant to challenge the award passed in C.P. No. 75 of 1999. The contention of the Appellant is that she has taken charge only in the year 2006 and that previous Panchayat President ought to have taken steps to contest C.P. No. 75 of 1999. But, that cannot be the ground for non-payment of amount when order is challenged after 8 years.
Having regard to delay in challenging the order made in C.P. No. 75 of 1999, the learned single Judge rightly dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of laches and delay. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.
When we were about to pass the order dismissing the Writ Appeal, the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader, Mr. K. Balasubramanian, submitted that Pallapatty Panchayat has got no funds to satisfy the award passed in C.P. No. 75 of 1999 and in case if the Panchayat has to pay such a huge amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), the Panchayat has to meet serious financial crunch. If really, the Appellant Panchayat is facing financial difficulties, it is always open to the Appellant panchayat to make a representation to the District Collector, Dindigul, who is the Inspector of Panchayats to satisfy the award amount. It is for the District Collector, Dindigul to consider the representation of the Panchayat keeping in view the financial difficulties of the Panchayat.
The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. The Appellant panchayat is at liberty to make a representation to the District Collector, Dindigul to satisfy the award in C.P. No. 75 of 1999 and the District Collector, Dindigul/Inspector of Panchayats is directed to consider the representation of the panchayat and pass orders keeping in view the difficulties of the Panchayat and in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.