2008 (7) TMI 1050 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are whether a separate application is necessary for condonation of delay and whether the question of delay needs to be adjudicated before considering the matter on merit.

Issue 1: Requirement of separate application for condonation of delay

The deceased respondent had filed a claim petition for gratuity without an application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal without considering Rule 7 and Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972. The petitioner argued that the claim petition should have been accompanied by an application for condonation of delay as per the rules and relevant judgments. However, the legal representatives of the deceased respondent contended that Rule 7 does not necessitate a separate application for condonation of delay, and the Controlling Authority has the power to condone the delay under Rule 10.

Issue 2: Adjudication of delay before considering the matter on merit

The deceased respondent retired in 2005, issued a legal notice for gratuity, and filed a claim petition without an application for condonation of delay. Rule 7 mandates an application within 30 days, with provision for delayed applications showing sufficient cause. Rule 10 allows redressal before the Controlling Authority within 90 days, with provision for condoning delay. The Court noted that an application under Rule 10 must be made within the prescribed time and accompanied by an explanation for any delay. Failure to do so would render the Controlling Authority's proceedings in violation of Rule 10. The judgment emphasized the necessity of following the rules and providing sufficient cause for delayed claims.

Conclusion:
The Court held that in cases where an application is made beyond the prescribed time under Rule 10, an application for condonation of delay showing sufficient cause is necessary. Since the deceased respondent's claim petition was rejected solely due to the lack of an application for condonation of delay, the legal representatives were granted the opportunity to submit a fresh claim petition with the required application. The original order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to make a fresh application in accordance with the law, with the refund of the deposited amount.